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.
One example is below.
Q: Drapeau's cohorts, the cohort would be a "victim" of making the bomb. Further, firebombs are inherently dangerous. There is no peaceful purpose for making a bomb. Felony offenses that involve explosives qualify as "violent crimes" for purposes of enhancing the sentences of career offenders. See 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (defining a "violent felony" as: "any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... that ... involves use of explosives"). Courts have found possession of a'bomb to be a crime of violence based on the lack of a nonviolent purpose for a bomb and the fact that, by its very nature, there is a substantial risk that the bomb would be used against the person or property of another. See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dodge, 846 F.Supp. 181,, Holding statements: (A) holding that possession of a pipe bomb is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 3142f1 (B) holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence (C) holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc 16 (D) holding for the purposes of 18 usc 924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc 924e2b (E) holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 16
A: holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence
Rationale: It's a good example. Based on the given prompt, holding that possession of a pipe bomb is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 3142f1 is correct.
Q: to their rental property; (4) whether the chancellor erred in awarding alimony; (5) whether the chancellor erred in awarding attorneys' fees; and (6) whether the chancellor erred in requiring him to maintain a $200,000 life insurance policy for Becky's benefit. We address these issues in turn below. STANDARDS OF REVIEW '26. "When reviewing a decision of a chancellor, this Court applies a limited abuse of discretion standard of review." Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806, 810 ( 14) (Miss.2003). "This Court will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied." Id. at 819 ( 53); accord Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 608, 609 (Miss.1990) (<HOLDING>). However, chancellor's conclusions on pure
Holding statements: (A) holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous (B) holding that a chancellors finding of fact will not be reversed unless manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous (C) holding that the bankruptcy court abuses or exceeds its discretion when 1 its decision rests on an error of law such as application of the wrong legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding or 2 its decision though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions (D) holding that decisions that lie within the trial courts discretion are to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous (E) holding that the lower court is the factfinding body and that its findings of fact will not be set aside on appellate review unless they are clearly erroneous
A:
holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous