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.

[Q]: Eighth Circuit and a pair of nonprece-dential decisions from this court, all of which assume that lying to a supervising probation officer is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), a felony. See United States v. Wagner, 573 Fed.Appx. 598, 598-99 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Quillman, 409 Fed.Appx. 18, 21 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 491-92 (8th Cir. 1995). But Grimes was decided before Congress amended 1001 to exempt from its coverage any false statement made to a "judge or magistrate" by a party in a "judicial proceeding," 18 U.S.C. 1001(b), and we haven't yet considered whether, or to what extent, that exemption covers lies made to a probation officer by a person under supervision, compare United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653,
Holding statements: (A) holding that probation is not a sentence (B) holding that defendants lies to probation officer preparing presentence report fall within 1001b exception if probation officer must include particular statement in report (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 if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error (E) holding that the defendants statements to the probation officer were insufficient to satisfy the safety valves fifth requirement the probation officer is for purposes of 5c12 not the government
[A]: (B)

[Q]: if the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary ..."); Douglas by Kelly v. Bd. of Edu., 127 Ill.App.3d 79, 82 Ill.Dec. 211, 468 N.E.2d 473, 476 (1984) (finding that where a school's window pane fell on plaintiff while she was sitting at her desk, plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict based on res ipsa loqui-tur); Moore v. Atchison, 28 Ill.App.2d 340, 171 N.E.2d 393 (1960) (finding that directed verdict for the plaintiff was proper where there was no direct evidence as to why two trains collided, even though the defendant showed that the equipment was properly inspected and in excellent working order, because the circumstances made the inference of negligence so strong that reasonable men could not reject it); Silvern v. Barbagallo, 195 N.Y.S.2d 32 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1959) (<HOLDING>); Richard Equipment Corp. v. Manhattan Indus.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the injured passenger of a cab was entitled to summary judgment against the driver because the prima facie proof is so convincing that the inference of negligence is inescapable (B) holding the standard of proof in summary judgment rulings is the same as it would be at trial (C) holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence (D) holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case (E) holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
[A]: (A)

[Q]: its employee because "purely economic losses are unrecoverable in tort. . . actions in the absence of personal injury or property damage" (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Straley, 533 N.E.2d 764, 771 (Ohio 1988) ("We do not find that a duty to an injured employee's employer exists by virtue of the pronouncements of common law, by legislative enactment, or by operation of law. It would appear that such a duty could only exist based on contract or warranty."); Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 627 P.2d at 473 (citing the prevailing rule "that a plaintiff may not recover for economic loss resulting from negligent infliction of bodily harm to a third person"); Vogel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 571 N.W.2d 704, 708 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997) (<HOLDING>). {17} This conclusion is consistent with both
Holding statements: (A) holding that no public policy stated where employee and not public at large would benefit from employees whistleblowing actions (B) holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits (C) holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby (D) holding as a matter of public policy that allowing damages to an employer for economic consequences arising from injuries to an employee would enter a field with no sensible stopping point (E) recognizing that a foreign company as a special employer under the lent employee doctrine was subject to arizonas workers compensation statutes for injuries sustained by an employee
[A]:
(D)