Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

convictions are impermissible when they rest on the same "unit of prosecution," i.e., when they "punish a defendant twice for continuous possession of a firearm in furtherance of co-terminous predicate offenses involving essentially the same conduct." United States v. Wallace, 447 F.3d 184, 187-88 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, predicate offenses are distinct in time and conduct, however, involvement of the same weapon will not bar consecutive sentences. See United States v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271, 277-79 (2d Cir.2001) (upholding consecutive sentences for 924(c)(1) violations involving same bomb, where predicate offenses were not co-terminous and punished defendant separately for carriage and use); see also United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d at 205-06 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, overwhelming trial evidence showed
Holding statements: (A) holding that conviction of and punishment for both the underlying predicate offense and continuing criminal enterprise does not violate double jeopardy (B) holding motion for attorneys fees was necessary predicate (C) holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico conspiracy (D) recognizing that deprivation of a right was a necessary predicate to 1983 conspiracy liability (E) holding that single conspiracy connecting multiple assaults does not preclude treating assaults as separate predicate offense nor does fact that assaults are clustered in time and space merge them into one predicate crime
holding that conviction of and punishment for both the underlying predicate offense and continuing criminal enterprise does not violate double jeopardy