Instructions: 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.
Input: provision for premeditated murder, U.S.S.G. 2A1.1, when it should have relied on the provision for non-premeditated murder, 2A1.2. These claims do not rely on an intervening change in the law that has rendered the conduct for which he was convicted non-criminal. Massaro also invokes Alleyne v. United States in an effort to fit his sentencing claims within 2255's "safety valve." In Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to the jury. 133 S.Ct. at 2155. Even assuming, arguendo, that Alleyne were relevant to Massaro's sentence, we have made clear that Alleyne-based claims cannot be raised in a 2241 petition. Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99, 102-03 (3d Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude that this
Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines (B) holding that only defendants who can allege they are actually innocent meaning they did not commit the crimes for which they are convicted may bring a petition for relief under crim proc 8301 (C) holding that prisoners sentenced prior to alleyne may not challenge their sentences under 2241 because alleyne did not render the crimes for which they were convicted noncriminal (D) holding that prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they did not affirmatively state that their bias against the plaintiffs would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict (E) holding that apprendi was not triggered because the defendants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment that were within the maximum penalties for the rico offenses that they were found guilty of committing
Output:
holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines