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.

money judgment can be satisfied out of any of the defendant’s assets.” Billman, 915 F.2d at 920 (citing United States v. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798, 800-03 (7th Cir.1985)). Consequently, after a conviction on a forfeiture count, the district court may order forfeiture of the defendant’s substitute assets. The Billman Court then examined the question of whether substitute assets could be restrained pending trial and ruled in the affirmative. 915 F.2d at 920-21. With an eye to the remedial purposes of the forfeiture statute, the court read the provision allowing for a restraining order in connection with the substitute assets provision as calling for the preservation and restraint of substitute assets pending trial. Id. at 921; see also United States v. Skiles, 715 F.Supp. 1567 (N.D.Ga.1989) (<HOLDING>). The Fourth Circuit in Billman relied on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that additional witnesses were not needed to corroborate the defendants drug abuse problems because counsel had already introduced sufficient evidence of drug use (B) holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute (C) holding that a state conviction is a drug trafficking offense because the trafficked drug is listed in a csa schedule (D) holding in the drug trafficking context that the government is allowed to restrain additional assets pretrial to ensure sufficient assets for forfeiture (E) recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking
holding that additional witnesses were not needed to corroborate the defendants drug abuse problems because counsel had already introduced sufficient evidence of drug use

has recently held that a police officer may order passengers out of a vehicle during a traffic stop without violating the passengers’ Fourth Amendment rights. See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997). The Court reasoned that the public interest in protecting an officer’s safety outweighed the minimal intrusion involved in requiring passengers to exit the vehicle. See id. at 413-15, 117 S.Ct. 882. The same rationale applies here. An officer may reasonably conclude that his safety is best protected by having the passengers remain in the vehicle. Further, the intrusion involved with having passengers remain in their vehicle is de minimis — the officer is merely maintaining the status quo. See United States v. Moorefield, 111 F.3d 10, 11 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Defendant Garner refused to comply with 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop (B) holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop (C) holding that police officer may order passengers to remain in vehicle with hands up during traffic stop (D) holding police officers making a traffic stop could order passengers out of the stopped car (E) holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction
holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop

transfer, and everything else about the transaction was local to St. Thomas, to wit: Franklin Martinez, the lender and president of Transcaribbean, is a St. Thomas resident and has substantial business interests in the Virgin Islands. Those interests include that Martinez is an officer and part-owner of Colombian Emeralds, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and a part-owner of Sea Wind Food Distributors, Inc., Clark asserts that federal jurisdiction is inappo-site because the transaction occurred between Martinez and Peter Clark — both local businessmen — and involved a loan to fund a local real-estate development. This argument fails because the Court may assume jurisdiction on the basis of a single interstate wire communication. See United States v. Pecora, 693 F.2d 421, 424 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, facts alleged by Clark about the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction (B) holding that the jurys guilty verdict on the separate substantive count of bribery under federal law confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted the defendant of honest services fraud if the courts definition had been limited to the bribery basis that skilling expressly approved (C) holding in action involving single claim that if claim sounded only in admiralty there would be no right to a jury trial but if federal question was present as a separate and independent basis for federal jurisdiction then the jury demand must be honored (D) holding that a federal court can assume jurisdiction over a local bribery ease involving only local residents on the basis of a single interstate telephone call (E) holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed

holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction