Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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
Output: holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc  2113a is a crime of violence 
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.

New input case for you: 523(a)(4) defalcation prong, as stated by this court in In re Kaplan, 162 B.R. 684, 704 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1993), aff'd sub nom. Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc., 189 B.R. 882 (E.D.Pa.), reconsideration denied sub nom. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 198 B.R. 91 (E.D.Pa.1996), that the term “fiduciary capacity” is very narrowly defined. Thus, we stated, at id., that, to give rise to § 523(a)(4) liability, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to prove only that there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties, but also to prove that there is an express trust held by the fiduciary (debtor) on behalf of the beneficiary (creditor), which did not arise out of the action that created the fiduciary relation ship. See In re Spector, 133 B.R. 733, 739-40 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Shervin, 112 B.R. 724, 730-31 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal law defines fiduciary capacity and fraud or defalcation (B) holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4 (C) holding that the fraud or defalcation prong of  523a4 requires the showing of an express trust (D) holding that an attorney is a fiduciary under section 523a4 (E) holding a duty of care without more insufficient to satisfy the fiduciary relationship element of  523a4 the federal courts adopting this narrow interpretation of fiduciary for purposes of the bankruptcy code gen erally hold that an express or technical trust is necessary to trigger the defalcation provision of  523a4
Output:
holding that federal law defines fiduciary capacity and fraud or defalcation