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.

Input: Consider Input: method (under 3663) in favor of an incorrect method (under 1593), the district court erred. Moreover, we hold that the district court's error was "plain," because the statutes are clear and because the government openly admitted that its proposed methodology derived from the wrong restitution statute. See United States v. Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen, 565 F.3d 668, 677 (9th Cir.2009) ("An error is plain when it is 'clear' or 'obvious' under the law."). Finally, we hold that the error affected Defendants' substantial rights and affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The government did not present evidence and the district court did not make findings of the victims' actual losses, as required by 3663. See Bussell, 504 F.3d at 964 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Joyner, 201 F.3d 61, 81 (2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that restitution is proper under 2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses (B) holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted (C) holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc 3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction (D) holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses (E) holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum

Output: holding that restitution is proper under 2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses

Input: Consider Input: from the Fijian military," was "robbed repeatedly," had his temple burned by Fijian soldiers, and Fijian soldiers attacked his home and destroyed his property while his wife was home alone. See id. Significantly, the attacks were linked by the fact that they were all carried out by a common entity, as opposed to random acts of violence that this court has characterized as the "common byproduct of civil unrest and economic turmoil." See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004). The acts described by Kumar are closer to those in Gormley. Therefore, the evidence does not compel a finding of persecution. Nor did Kumar present evidence that would compel "any reasonable adjudicator" to find that he demonstrated a likelihood of future persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061 (<HOLDING>). Because Kumar's evidence did not compel a
Holding statements: (A) holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals (B) holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution (C) holding that evidence that is consistent with acts of private violence or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground (D) holding that while widespread violence against a protected group by private individuals and public officials may constitute persecution widespread discrimination that may include persecution of some individuals does not compel such a finding (E) holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution

Output: holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals

Input: Consider Input: countries but noting that the right generally remains less expansive than the Fifth Amendment right in the United States). There is no reason to think the drafters of the Vienna Convention had these uniquely American rights in mind, especially given the fact that even the United States Supreme Court did not require Fifth and Sixth Amendment post-arrest warnings until it decided Miranda in 1966, three years after the treaty was drafted. Judge Thomas's dissent discusses the longer history of the exclusionary rule for an involuntary confession, but that is not the issue we must decide. Although appellant contends that the exclusionary rule is the usual and, in this instance, only effective way to enforc (4th Cir.1995) (same); United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Benevento, 836 F.2d 60, 69
Holding statements: (A) holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation (B) holding a statutory violation insufficient to justify imposition of the exclusionary rule absent an underlying constitutional violation or right or evidence that congress intended exclusion as a remedy (C) holding that because code 19260 a procedural statute did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation (D) holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required (E) holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
Output: holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation