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.

Q: CURIAM: Michael Disch appeals his convictions for mailing threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876(c), and making false statements to an FBI agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Disch argues that the district court judge was required to recuse himself sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and 455(b). Ordinarily, we review a judge's decision not to recuse himself under 455(a) and 455(b) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir.1999); see also Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1527-28 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). However, when a defendant fails to seek
Holding statements: (A) holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error (B) holding that a 455b violation is subject to harmless error review (C) holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error (D) holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review (E) holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis

A: holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error
****
Q: indorsers, and other persons conditionally liable also receive benefits from payment of the debt. If called on to pay, guarantors and the like would have been creditors; the "benefit" to them is that extinguishing the primary debt means that they receive a larger percentage of their claim than they would have had they paid and been converted to general creditors of the bankrupt. Cases under the 1898 Act routinely held that unless a person escapes an obligation to pay and so reaps a larger portion of his claim than do other creditors, he has not received a statutory "benefit". E.g., Mayes v. Palmer, 208 F. 97 (8th Cir.1913); Walker v. Wilkinson, 296 F. 850 (5th Cir.1924); Mansfield Lumber Co. v. Sternberg, 38 F.2d 614 (8th Cir.1930). See also Bonded Financial, 838 F.2d at 895-96 (<HOLDING>). The Liquidator has not identified, and we
Holding statements: (A) holding that subparagraphs a and b are mutually exclusive and thus any travel between work and home even if it is also for a dual purpose must be analyzed exclusively under paragraph a (B) holding that transferee and beneficiary are mutually exclusive categories (C) holding trial court is sole and exclusive judge of witnesses credibility (D) holding that the remedies are exclusive (E) recognizing that 1983 and 2254 proceedings are mutually exclusive so that if a claim can be properly raised in one of those proceedings it cannot be raised in the other type of proceeding

A: holding that subparagraphs a and b are mutually exclusive and thus any travel between work and home even if it is also for a dual purpose must be analyzed exclusively under paragraph a
****
Q: bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, "Outrageous!" [14] Id. The question of what amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct depends in part on prevailing cultural norms and values, and "[i]n the appropriate case, the question can be decided as a matter of law." Id. This is the case here. [15] McCollough argues that Bryant's conduct in failing to thoroughly investigate the incident, leading others to believe that he had fully investigated the incident when he had not, and in directing that McCollough's statement be altered so that i Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Because we conclude as a
Holding statements: (A) holding that title to land vests in decedents heirs not in his administrator (B) holding decedents remains are not property and the coroner and the coroners employees have no mandatory statutory duty or common law duty to treat human remains as if they were operating a mortuary or crematory (C) holding that evidence that decedents second wife secretly decided to disinter decedents remains rather than maintain a grave with a headstone pursuant to an agreement with family members sufficiently established that wifes actions were deliberate and extreme and outrageous for purposes of establishing an iied claim (D) holding that executor owed no legal duty under negligence theory to decedents sons who claimed bank accounts upon her death under a right of survivorship but were not beneficiaries of any of decedents property under her will (E) holding that decedents daughter was necessary party to maryland wrongful death action

A:
holding that title to land vests in decedents heirs not in his administrator
****