Detailed 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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Problem:Nogueira's own testimony, that, as required under 3B1.4, Gerald took multiple affirmative acts to involve No-gueira in the crime, such that Nogueira's involvement was directly foreseeable to Gerald. See id. at 1288 (emphasizing foreseeability). Specifically, Gerald used and directed Nogueira to schedule the meetings at the church, pass out information to the applicants, translate for her during multiple meetings at Bethel Christian Church, complete falsified residency letters (including translated letters), and arrange meetings. Gerald also paid No-gueira $100 to create a flyer that promoted Gerald's "immigration consulting" services and provided Gerald's contact information. Nogueira helped Gerald in her scheme and was not merely present during the offense. Taber, 497 F.3d at 1181 (<HOLDING>). Certainly, Nogueira's actions furthered
Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement (B) holding that the new york misdemeanor offense of sexual abuse of a minor constitutes an aggravated felony under ina 101a43asexual abuse of a minor (C) holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries (D) holding that because minor defendant was mandatorily sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and because his case was still pending on direct appeal when miller was released the minor defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing (E) holding that an enhancement for distribution of child pornography to a minor was improper because the pornographic materials at issue were transmitted to an undercover law enforcement officer who was not a minor
Solution:
(A)