You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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
Solution: holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence
Why? 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.

New input: which makes the actor negligent, such an act whether innocent, negligent, intentionally tor-tious, or criminal does not prevent the actor from being liable for harm caused thereby."). 14 . Although we have cited 302B several times in dicta, this court has never invoked that section as a source of liability. See Bryson v. Banner Health Sys., 89 P.3d 800, 805 n. 11 (Alaska 2004) (quoting almost identical language in Prosser and Keeton on Torts for the proposition that a special relationship may yield a duty to protect another from a third party); Joseph v. State, 26 P.3d 459, 471 n. 67 (Alaska 2001) (citing 302B for the proposition that "a reasonably foreseeable occurrence cannot be an intervening/superseding cause if the actor has a duty to prevent that occurrence"); Wil 011) (<HOLDING>); Kim v. Budget Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 143
Holding statements: (A) holding that a prior conviction for abusive sexual contact under 18 usc 2244a3 was a per se crime of violence within the meaning of the application notes and declining to consider application of the residual clause (B) holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house (C) holding that violence was not the foreseeable result of opening the door to an abusive and upset exhusband while a new boyfriend was over (D) holding that opening the door in response to a police demand and then failing to object when officers entered was not voluntary consent (E) holding that arrest by the back door of defendants house was unlawful
Solution:
holding that a prior conviction for abusive sexual contact under 18 usc 2244a3 was a per se crime of violence within the meaning of the application notes and declining to consider application of the residual clause