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: Consider Input: 924(c) conviction is invalid after Bailey and Bousley, it argues we are prohibited from reaching the merits of his claim because Abdullah did not present his Bailey/Bousley challenge on direct appeal or in the 2255 proceedings below. Alternatively, the government argues the claim is barred by AEDPA's one-year limitations period. We assume for purposes of this appeal that Abdullah did not procedurally default his Bailey claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. Notwithstanding such an assumption, we conclude the claim is barred because Abdullah failed to adequately raise the issue before the district court in this 2255 proceeding. Generally, a habeas claim cannot be raised by a petitioner for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Petty v. Card, 195 F.3d 399, 400 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 78, 148
Holding statements: (A) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court (B) holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted (C) holding that court may address procedurally defaulted claim on the merits where it is more efficient to do so (D) holding that habeas claim not included in petition and never raised by petitioner before the district court as basis for habeas relief is procedurally defaulted (E) holding that an argument not raised before the district court is procedurally defaulted

Output: holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court

Input: Consider Input: assault conviction. See Ohio Rev.Code 3319.39(B). Further, Plaintiffs understanding of the nature of the choice he was required to make is demonstrated by the fact that he discussed the choices with his union representatives' the President and Vice President of his local union and the President of the Central Ohio union and discussed the choice with a teacher at Ft. Hayes High School. See Harris, 2008 WL 4186316, *8, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86385, at *20 (finding that the plaintiff "fully understood the options as he testified that he discussed them with his wife and union steward"). Also, Plaintiff was given a reasonable amount of time to choose between termination and resignation as he was given approximately twenty-four hours in which to decide. See Rhoads, 103 Fed.Appx. at 895 (<HOLDING>); Harris, 2008 WL 4186316, *8, 2008 U.S. Dist.
Holding statements: (A) holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force (B) holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference (C) holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours (D) holding that seven hours was a reasonable amount of time to deliberate meaningfully about the choice (E) holding that delay of several hours after the vehicle was seized was reasonable

Output: holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force

Input: Consider Input: "involves challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case." Graham, 130 S.Ct. at Graham is limited to juveniles. See United States v. Banks, 679 F.3d 505, 507 (6th Cir.2012); Jones, 476 Fed.Appx. at 652; Moore, 643 F.3d at 457. Walker's attempts to differentiate his case are unpersuasive. That Walker's sentence may prove to be an "effective[ ] life sentence" does not create an Eighth Amendment violation. "[T]he Supreme Court has never held that a sentence to a specific term of years, even if it might turn out to be more than the reasonable life expectancy of the defendant, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment." United States v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516, 537 (6th Cir.2004); see also Bunch v. Smith, 685 F.3d 546, 550 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Walker's categorical challenge
Holding statements: (A) holding that the eighth amendment forbids life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile who commits a nonhomicide offense (B) holding that consecutive fixedterm sentences for juveniles who committed multiple nonhomicide offenses are not clearly unconstitutional under graham even when they amount to the practical equivalent of life without parole (C) holding that multiple sentences for offenses under 18 usc 924c are appropriate when multiple separate acts of firearm use have occurred even if they are related to the same underlying offense (D) holding that life without parole sentences for nonhomicide offenses violates the eighth amendment (E) recognizing that njeither graham nor miller explicitly apply to the functional equivalent of life without parole ie de facto life sentences
Output: holding that the eighth amendment forbids life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile who commits a nonhomicide offense