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.

trial, we review the district court's decision for plain error. See United States v. Cooke, 110 F.3d 1288, 1293 (7th Cir.1997). Muhammad must therefore prove that the district court erred in admitting Agent Denny's testimony and that the error was "so egregious as to constitute a miscarriage of justice," United States v. Beltran, 109 F.3d 365, 370 n. 1 (7th Cir.1997). See United States v. Schaefer, 107 F.3d 1280, 1286 (7th Cir.1997). We find that the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, in permitting Agent Denny to testify about Muhammad's statements and in refusing to order the Government to disclose Agent Gandolfo's interview notes. First of all, Agent Denny's testimony was not inadmissible hearsay because she used the FBI 302 report merely to re -75 (7th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The district court reviewed Agent Gandolfo's
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendants prior conviction referenced in his presentence report could be taken as admitted because he had made no objection to the facts in his report (B) holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel (C) holding defendants statement that presentence report was correct did not constitute admission to the nature and cireumstances of the crime reflected in the report (D) holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report (E) holding that the defendants right of confrontation was not abridged where an agent discarded a handwritten draft of a report after the report had been typed
holding that the defendants prior conviction referenced in his presentence report could be taken as admitted because he had made no objection to the facts in his report