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.

Ex Input:
of not more than 15 years, and it similarly concluded as follows: If a sentence under this paragraph provides for imprisonment, the sentence shall include a special parole term of not less than three years in addition to such term of imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1). The language of 841(b)(1)(A) and 960(b)(1) thus squarely contradicts Walberg's contention, for each stated that the special parole term shall be a minimum of a certain number of "years in addition to [the] term of imprisonment." Accord United States v. Mack, 509 F.2d 615, 616 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 916, 95 S.Ct. 1578, 43 L.Ed.2d 783 (1975); Llerena v. United States, 508 F.2d 78, 82 (5th Cir.1975). Cf. Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 388, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 2252, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The legislative history of the Act and the
Holding statements: (A) holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc 848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc 848c (B) holding that no special parole term was authorized for a conviction for conspiracy in violation of 21 usc 846 which mentioned only fine and imprisonment and not special parole and emphazing the in addition to language of 21 usc 841b1b (C) holding that in order for a trial court to determine which of the three graduated penalty subsections of 21 usc 841b applies to defendants convicted of a 846 drug conspiracy the jury must be instructed to determine the threshold quantity of drugs attributable to each conspiracy defendant on trial (D) holding that the elements of a drug conspiracy under 21 usc 846 do include an overt act requirement (E) holding lopez was inapplicable to the language prior conviction for a felony drug offense in 21 usc 841b1a because felony drug offense was defined in 21 usc 80244 as an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the united states or of a state

Ex Output:
holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc 848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc 848c

Ex Input:
but rather affords a bright-line, legal presumption of coercion, requiring suppression of all unwarned statements." Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1292 n. 1, 84 L.Ed.2d 222, 23 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958) (same). Essentially, the Court determined that the prejudicial quality of testimony regarding an actually coerced confession is, like all other improperly introduced testimony at trial, capable of review. At this point in time, the Fulminante decision stands as the sole, albeit the dispositive, case on this point. In contrast, cases applying the harmless error analysis to the introduction of presumptively coerced statements are legion. See e.g. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 605 & n. 22, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 2652 & n. 22, 110 L.Ed.2d 528, 555 & n. 22 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 443, 104
Holding statements: (A) holding that waiver of miranda rights was valid where finding that the defendant initiated the conversation was implicit in the district judges denial of the suppression motion (B) holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (C) holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence (D) holding that although defendant was a deputy sheriff miranda warnings were required irrespective of defendants knowledge of his fifth amendment rights (E) holding that although miranda required the suppression of testimonial statements made before defendant was advised of his constitutional rights the state court is free of course to consider this harmless error question upon remand

Ex Output:
holding that waiver of miranda rights was valid where finding that the defendant initiated the conversation was implicit in the district judges denial of the suppression motion

Ex Input:
the charges brought against a defendant. The Supreme Court in Koon v. United States, U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 2046-47, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996), however, recognized that judicial discretion plays a role in sentencing and that sentences resulting from guideline departures are appropriate in certain circumstances. Koon sends a signal to appellate courts to extend a greater measure of deference to district courts' discretion in sentencing. In this case, Judge Melloy, an experienced jurist, made a fair and reasonable decision supported by adequate grounds for departing. We should affirm. II. DISCUSSION In Koon, the Supreme Court instructed appellate courts to accord sentencing courts greater discretion in their decisions to depart from the guidelines. Koon, U.S. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 2043 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. McNeil, 90 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo (B) holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard (C) recognizing abuse of discretion rather than de novo standard of review (D) holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion (E) holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo

Ex Output:
recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo