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.
Input: the Court considered the facts surrounding his attempted burglary conviction. In United States v. Telesco, 962 F.2d 165 (2d Cir.1992) the Second Circuit held that "[w]hen prior convictions are for crimes designated as 'crimes of violence' by the Sentencing Commission, the sentencing court is not permitted to examine the actual conduct underlying the convictions. The Sentencing Commission has thus determined that certain crimes regardless of the precise conduct are inherently violent." Id. at 166. As stated above, it has already been decided that attempted burglary is a "violent felony." See Andrello, 9 F.3d at 249. Thus, for purposes of determining career offender status under the Guidelines, there is no such thing as a non-violent attempted burglary. See Telesco, 962 F.2d at 166 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Hathaway, 949 F.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary (B) holding that burglary is violent felony (C) holding that virginia burglary statute comes within definition of generic burglary (D) holding there is no such thing as a nonviolent burglary (E) holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary
Output:
(D)