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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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: U.S. Fire tacitly acknowledged in its 2007 papers (and also before us now) that some portion of the ENSR bills relating to the 2004 site work constitutes recoverable defense costs. Yet, as with the legal fees, U.S. Fire made no attempt to pay a single cent, nor is there any record evidence that it made any effort to resolve the sizable remuneration issue. U.S. Fire’s apathy stands in sharp contrast to the Museum’s multiple requests for some measure of contractual defense benefits in 2004 and 2005; its request for clarification in August 2005 of what “defense expenditures [its insurer may have paid] to date [and] on what terms”; and its express reminder about the ENSR bills in its November 2006 correspondence. Cf. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Maguire, 662 F.3d 51, 56-58 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). We also reject U.S. Fire’s attempt to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insureds criminal convictions were sufficient to preclude relitigation of the issue of the insureds subjective intent for purposes of evaluating the insurers duty to defend (B) holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees (C) holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss (D) holdingas a matter of law that the insurers diligent investigation efforts and readiness to comply negated allegations of breach especially when compared to the insureds lackadaisical conduct (E) holding that insureds breach of contract suit against insurer raised a coverage issue which was not settled by insurers payment of only part of what insured was claiming in breach of contract action
Output:
holding that insureds criminal convictions were sufficient to preclude relitigation of the issue of the insureds subjective intent for purposes of evaluating the insurers duty to defend