Q: 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.
together is inconsistent. See U.S.S.G. 3D1.2(c). The guidelines require district courts to examine a defendant's role-in-the-offense under 3B1.1 before grouping or separating counts under 3D1.2. See U.S.S.G. IB 1.1(c) & (d) (setting forth the chronology to be followed in calculating a final offense level and requiring adjustments to be made under Part B of Chapter 3 before applying Part D of Chapter 3). Thus, when conduct from one count (or group of counts) has already been used to trigger an adjustment to another count (or group of counts), 3D1.2(c) requires all those counts to be grouped together. We have several times prohibited the grouping of fraud and money laundering counts together into a single group. See United States v. Green, 225 F.3d 955, 958-59 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. O'Kane, 155 F.3d 969, 972-74
Holding statements: (A) holding that a count of 18 usc 1956 reinvestment money laundering should not be grouped with wire fraud counts under 3d12b (B) holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001 (C) holding that a count of 18 usc 1957 money laundering should not be grouped with mail fraud counts under either 3d12b or d (D) holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc 287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc 1341 1343 (E) holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud
A:
holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001