Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
Drapeau's cohorts, the cohort would be a "victim" of making the bomb. Further, firebombs are inherently dangerous. There is no peaceful purpose for making a bomb. Felony offenses that involve explosives qualify as "violent crimes" for purposes of enhancing the sentences of career offenders. See 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (defining a "violent felony" as: "any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... that ... involves use of explosives"). Courts have found possession of a'bomb to be a crime of violence based on the lack of a nonviolent purpose for a bomb and the fact that, by its very nature, there is a substantial risk that the bomb would be used against the person or property of another. See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dodge, 846 F.Supp. 181,, Holding statements: (A) holding that possession of a pipe bomb is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 3142f1 (B) holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence (C) holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc 16 (D) holding for the purposes of 18 usc 924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc 924e2b (E) holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 16
Solution: holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence
Reason: It's a good example. Based on the given prompt, holding that possession of a pipe bomb is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 3142f1 is correct.

Now, solve this instance: amended its order to disqualify Camenisch on March 27, 1998. 6 . Attorney Camenisch represents Mrs. Wagner on appeal because, he explained at oral argument, the trial court's disqualification order did not extend to this court a question we decline to address. 7 . The Wagners contend that there is a question of fact as to when Sellinger was terminated, suggesting it was later than July 21. That contention has no merit. Mrs. Wagner stated in her second amended complaint that she terminated the relationship "on or about July 21, 1994." She retained Mr. Camenisch on July 31, 1994. Despite Sellinger's failure to withdraw his appearance, the record makes clear that he did not continue to serve as Mrs. Wagner's counsel after July 21, 1994. 8 . This July 25, 1994 motion was , 1219-20 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Fabricating,
Holding statements: (A) holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation (B) recognizing that the statute of limitations for a survival action began to run on the date of the decedents injury as though he was bringing his own lawsuit (C) holding that limitations period began to run when flooding occurred not when plaintiffs learned city had been on notice of flooding potential and had fraudulent motive (D) holding statute of limitations began to run when plaintiffclient learned attorney negligently drafted contract not later when plaintiff lost on merits defending contract in lawsuit (E) holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run
Student:
holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation