Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
Example: 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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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
Output: holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence
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 case for you: or an agent or employee of the employer for the death of or a work-related injury sustained by the employee." Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 408.001(a) (West 2015). The entity with the "right to control" the employee at the time of an accident is the "employer" for workers' compensation purposes. See Archem v. Austin Indus., Inc., 804 S,W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ). The concept of joint control shared by dual or co-employers has been found applicable in workers' compensation insurance cases. See Port Elevator-Brownsville v. Casados, 358 S.W.3d 238, 242 (Tex.2012) (concluding employee of staffing company was covered by both temporary employer's and staffing company's workers' compensation insurance); Wingfoot Enters. v. Alvarado, 111 S.W.3d 134, 143 (Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Aztec Rig Equip., Inc., 921 S.W.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that exclusiveremedy provision applied to both temporary staffing company and client company (B) holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company (C) holding that trial court erred in granting ex parte temporary injunction prohibiting marketing activities of defendant company because there had been no showing that plaintiff company would likely suffer irreparable harm or lacked an adequate remedy at law (D) holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company (E) holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen
Output:
holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company