Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment." (Emphasis added.) Even assuming that Petitioner's crime was a misdemeanor, the statute permits imprisonment "in a county jail for not exceeding one year." Id. Because the statute permits imprisonment for one year, the one-year requirement under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) is met even if Petitioner's crime was a misdemeanor. iar-Lopez, the state court never declared Petitioner's offense to be a misdemeanor. Id. at 845. Because section 17(b) does not apply and because the minute order designated Petitioner's conviction as a felony, we hold that Petitioner's conviction was a felony. See United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 293 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), recognized as overruled in other part by
Holding statements: (A) holding that the standard was met when two actions were related to the same assets and were based upon almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty (B) holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense (C) holding that proof of an agreement to commit a felony is not a necessary element in a conviction for the commission of the felony (D) holding in circumstances identical to petitioners here that the requirements of 17b1 and 3 of the california penal code were not met and accordingly the conviction was a felony (E) holding that requirements of apprendi were not met where facts on which sentence enhancement was based were not charged and submitted to the jury
holding that the standard was met when two actions were related to the same assets and were based upon almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty