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: of bribing a juror and conspiring to bribe public officials). We are, however, greatly disturbed by this "misappropriation." 20 . Mr. DiTrapano did not comment on his authority to tell the bank falsehoods regarding his client's intent to execute the loan documents, his client's intent to be jointly liable on the loan, and his own intent to take the loan documents to the client for the client's signature. 21 . If Mr. DiTrapano's law license had not already been annulled and the Court was instead deciding on an appropriate sanction, his failure to take full responsibility for his behavior would constitute an aggravating factor, potentially justifying an increase in the degree of discipline imposed. See syl. pt. 4, Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Scott, 213 W.Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Aleshire, 230
Holding statements: (A) holding that the grand jury need not find nonstatutory aggravating factors (B) holding that factors increasing a defendants sentence beyond the statutory maximum of the crime charged with the exception of prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (C) holding that aggravating factors may justify increasing the degree of discipline imposed (D) holding that if the imposition of the death penalty depends on the existence of aggravating factors a jury must find those factors beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that danger must justify the degree of interference imposed
Output:
holding that the grand jury need not find nonstatutory aggravating factors