You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

Zillgitt was sentenced principally to 109 months' imprisonment. In a separate appeal docketed as No. 00-1421, Zillgitt challenges the legality, of his sentence, arguing that the jury's general verdict, made without findings as to the type and amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy,, required that he be sentenced under 21 U .S.C. 841(b)(1)(D), which provides the penalties for conspiring to distribute an unspecified amount of marijuana. The maximum period of imprisonment for violation of that subsection is 5 years, which is substantially less than the sentence imposed on defendant, nearly 7 years of which he has already served. In his motion for bail pending appeal, Zillgitt argues that, both under our decision in United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 667-72 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), and under the principles recently articulated
Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant can only be sentenced for misprision of felony based on drug quantities that he knew or should have known or foreseen were involved in the conspiracy (B) holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy (C) holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case (D) holding that when a district court determines drug quantity for the purpose of sentencing a defendant convicted of participating in a drugtrafficking conspiracy the court is required to make an individualized finding as to drug amounts attributable to or foreseeable by that defendant (E) holding that in certain circumstances where a defendant is convicted of a charge alleging a conspiracy to distribute one drug or another he must be sentenced as if the conviction were only for a conspiracy involving the drug that triggers the lowest statutory sentencing range
Output:
holding that a defendant can only be sentenced for misprision of felony based on drug quantities that he knew or should have known or foreseen were involved in the conspiracy