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 Q]: 924(c) conviction is invalid after Bailey and Bousley, it argues we are prohibited from reaching the merits of his claim because Abdullah did not present his Bailey/Bousley challenge on direct appeal or in the 2255 proceedings below. Alternatively, the government argues the claim is barred by AEDPA's one-year limitations period. We assume for purposes of this appeal that Abdullah did not procedurally default his Bailey claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. Notwithstanding such an assumption, we conclude the claim is barred because Abdullah failed to adequately raise the issue before the district court in this 2255 proceeding. Generally, a habeas claim cannot be raised by a petitioner for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Petty v. Card, 195 F.3d 399, 400 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 78, 148
Holding statements: (A) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court (B) holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted (C) holding that court may address procedurally defaulted claim on the merits where it is more efficient to do so (D) holding that habeas claim not included in petition and never raised by petitioner before the district court as basis for habeas relief is procedurally defaulted (E) holding that an argument not raised before the district court is procedurally defaulted
[EX A]: holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court

[EX Q]: is clear." Investment Company Institute, 891 F.Supp.2d at 205. The appellants also assert that the agency improperly counted hypothetical benefits, but this assertion is incorrect. It was appropriate for CFTC to count the benefits flowing from its registration and disclosure requirements in 4.5 and 4.27, as the specifics of those requirements are finalized and not subject to the harmonization rule. The appellants further complain that CFTC failed to put a precise number on the benefit of data collection in preventing future financial crises. But the law does not require agencies to measure the immeasurable. CFTC's discussion of unquantifiable benefits fulfills its statutory obligation to consider and evaluate potential costs and benefits. See Fox, 556 U.S. at 519, 129 S.Ct. 1800 (<HOLDING>). Where Congress has required "rigorous,
Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies (B) holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued (C) holding that agencies are not required to adduce empirical data that cannot be obtained (D) holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment (E) recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence
[EX A]: holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies

[EX Q]: inequality caused by taxing some property and not taxing other is permitted. The purpose of the proposed exemption, being one properly within the legislature's discretion in acting for the welfare of the state, furnishes a just reason therefor. Opinion of the Justices, 87 N.H. 490, 491, 178 A. 125, 126 (1935) (quotation and citation omitted). This is precisely the discrimination that violates the commerce clause, as the State has conceded. The limiting power of the United States Constitution over state action in such circumstances, see Opinion of the Justices, 87 N.H. 496, 498-99, 179 A. 409, 410 (1935), renders futile the protectionist effort, but it does not render the effort invalid under the State Constitution. Cf. Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U.S. 356, 359 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Having concluded that the legislative
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the states have large leeway in making classifications and drawing lines which in their judgment produce reasonable systems of taxation (B) recognizing that states may establish procedural rules governing litigation in their own courts (C) holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells (D) holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells (E) holding that the failure of the appellant to discuss in the opening brief an issue on which the trial court might have relied as a basis for its judgment results in an affirmance of that judgment
[EX A]:
recognizing that states may establish procedural rules governing litigation in their own courts