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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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

Now, solve this: dated July 23, 2004 that he was arrested by a non-uniformed officer he met with as a result of telephoning the Warrant Unit of the New York City Police Department. Lewis Aff. 10-11. He does not allege that he was arrested by Agent Mueller. At the time of Plaintiffs arrest, Agent Mueller avers, without dispute, that he was involved in a trial outside of New York and was therefore not present for Plaintiffs arrest. Mueller Decl. 8. Because Plaintiff has not asserted otherwise, I must find that Agent Mueller was not present at the arrest and thus is entitled to summary judgment on the claim. Furthermore, the warrant pursuant to which Mr. Lewis was arrested was issued by a neutral magistrate, automatically inuring Agent Mueller with qualified immunity. See Golino, 950 F.2d at 870 (<HOLDING>). For Plaintiff to challenge that immunity, he
Holding statements: (A) holding that an officers mistaken belief that the defendant was speeding was not an objectively reasonable purpose for a traffic stop (B) holding that a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate creates presumption that officers belief in probable cause was objectively reasonable (C) holding that evidence should not be suppressed if police officers acted in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate (D) holding that a plaintiff must show his belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented (E) holding that under payton a lesser reasonable belief standard and not probable cause is sufficient to allow officers to enter a residence to enforce an arrest warrant
Solution:
holding that an officers mistaken belief that the defendant was speeding was not an objectively reasonable purpose for a traffic stop