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 input: 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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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
Example output: holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence
Example explanation: 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: the petitioner custody would be in the child's best interests; and (3) there were sufficient facts pleaded that the welfare of the child required custody be vested in a third party pursuant to the statute. Id. at 140. Guardians allege Grandparents cannot initiate an independent action outside of a pending custody matter because the probate division already determined custody and this case arises outside of a dissolution proceeding. This Court recognizes that, since T.Q.L. was decided, appellate courts have interpreted its holding to permit a nonbiological parent or third-party to initiate an independent proceeding for third-party custody outside the parameters of a pending custody proceeding. See, e.g., D.S.K. ex rel J.J.K. v. D.L.T., 428 S.W.3d 655, 659-60 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (<HOLDING>); McGaw v. McGaw, 468 S.W.3d 435, 445 (Mo. App.
Holding statements: (A) holding that res judicata did not bar relitigation of paternity but only because the plaintiff had not been a party to or in privity with a party to the uncontested divorce judgment (B) holding that although the statute of limitations ran on the parents action the child could bring action after majority was reached (C) holding that female children excluded from membership in the boys club could bring claims against the organization (D) holding that husband who was excluded from paternity of children and could not intervene in a paternity action to obtain custody would be able to bring an independent action per tql (E) holding that judgment which ordered simultaneous paternity testing of both the defendant and his brother was interlocutory in that it did not determine the merits of the paternity case and thus was not governed by la cc p art 1951 such that a second judge could amend the judgment
A:
holding that res judicata did not bar relitigation of paternity but only because the plaintiff had not been a party to or in privity with a party to the uncontested divorce judgment