In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Ex Input:
not contest Alaimalo’s actual innocence. B. Prior Opportunities to Raise Actual Innocence Claim We turn to the question of whether Alaimalo’s actual innocence claim was unavailable to him during his direct appeal and his first § 2255 motion. In making this determination, we consider “(1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion; and (2) whether the law changed in any way relevant to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 motion.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (internal quotation marks omitted). An intervening court decision must “effect a material change in the applicable law” to establish unavailability. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960. See also In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 607, 610 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the supreme courts decision in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 effected a material change in the law because the circuit previously held that accessability of a firearm was enough to support an inference that a firearm was used in a drug crime whereas bailey required active employment of the firearm (B) holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used (C) holding that the supreme courts interpretation of 18 usc  924c1 in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 has retroactive application to cases on collateral review (D) holding that the rule announced in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 applies retroactively on collateral review (E) holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense

Ex Output:
holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used


Ex Input:
by this Court. The documents presented to the Court are not forms as prescribed by the Secretary of which the Debtors have verified under penalty of perjury. Instead, the Debtors submitted affidavits of Charles D. Tobias and documents entitled “Actual and Constructive Notice of Declaration.” In filing bankruptcy, the Debtors have sought this Court’s protection from creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service. However, the Debtors have continued to ig nore this Court’s orders and the Internal Revenue laws in failing to file tax returns. The Court finds that the Debtors’ disregard of this Court’s orders as well as their duty to file tax returns is evidence that the Debtors lacked good faith in filing this bankruptcy case. Matter of Crayton, 169 B.R. 243, 245 (Bankr.S.D.Ga.1994) (<HOLDING>). Section 1307(c) of Title 11 provides that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to file correct tax returns constitutes bad faith and makes it difficult for the court to confirm a plan (B) holding that a debtors right to strip off a wholly unsecured lien is conditioned on the debtors obtaining confirmation of and performing under a chapter 13 plan that meets all of the statutory requirements rather than on a debtors discharge (C) holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case (D) holding that debtors failure to pay postconfirmation taxes pursuant to terms of court order constituted cause for dismissal as a lack of good faith (E) holding on an objection to confirmation of plan that the debtors failure to file tax returns before filing the chapter 13 plan and debtors failure for six months to comply with federal law constituted a lack of good faith sufficient to warrant dismissal of the case

Ex Output:
holding that failure to file correct tax returns constitutes bad faith and makes it difficult for the court to confirm a plan


Ex Input:
No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002). 142 . See 15 U.S.C. § 7241(a)(4). 143 . See Compl. ¶¶ 75-78. 144 . Id. ¶ 78. 145 . See Caiola, 295 F.3d at 331. 146 . Compl. ¶ 78. 147 . Id. 148 . See id. 149 . See id. V 8. 150 . See id. ¶¶ 131-132. 151 . Novak, 216 F.3d at 309 (quotations omitted). 152 . See Compl. ¶¶ 133-137. 153 . See id. ¶¶ 6, 44, 48-49, 54-56, 62, 108. 154 . In re Scottish Re Group, 524 F.Supp.2d at 392 (quotations omitted). 155 . See Tellabs, 127 S.Ct. at 2511. 156 . See Compl. ¶¶ 8, 130. 157 . See Kalnit, 264 F.3d at 139 (“Motives that are generally possessed by most corporate directors and officers do not suffice; instead, plaintiffs must assert a concrete and personal benefit to the individual defendants resulting from the fraud.”). See also Chemical Bank, 726 F.2d at 939 (<HOLDING>). 158 . See Compl ¶¶ 8, 130. 159 . See In re 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a private plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an aiding and abetting action under  10b or rule 10b  5 (B) holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument (C) holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities (D) holding that a pledge is a sale and purchase of a security under  10b (E) holding that the wording of  10b making fraud in connection with purchase or sale of security a violation of the act is surely badly strained when construed to provide a cause of action not to purchasers or sellers of securities but to the world at large

Ex Output:

holding that a private plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an aiding and abetting action under  10b or rule 10b  5