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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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: provision is a condition precedent to the customer’s right to file an action against the bank to recover losses caused by the unauthorized signature or alteration”). 7 . An item (e.g., check) that contains less than the required number of signatures amounts to an “unauthorized signature.” See Va.Code 8.3A-403, Official Comment 4. 8 . See March 18, 2011 Hr’g Tr. 18:8-11. 9 . See March 18, 2011 Hr’gTr. 23:10-24:6. 10 . The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in Collins is consistent with its earlier deci sion in Radin v. Crestar Bank, 249 Va. 440, 457 S.E.2d 65, 66 (1995), holding that an attorney who opened a fiduciary account in which he deposited his client's funds was a "customer.” 11 . Cf. Thrash v. Georgia State Bank of Rome, 189 Ga.App. 21, 375 S.E.2d 112, 113 (Ga.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). 12 . It is worth noting that at least some 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff an officer and shareholder of a corporation with signatory authority over the corporations checking account was not a customer of the bank and could not file suit for wrongful dishonor of the corporations checks (B) holding that while a state statute granted a foreign corporation the rights and privileges enjoyed by domestic corporations it did not transform such corporations into domestic or resident corporations (C) recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check (D) holding president of corporation liable as employer where he inter alia maintained control over the corporations employment and pay practices and had the authority to make all major decisions regarding the corporations business affairs (E) holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities
Output:
holding that while a state statute granted a foreign corporation the rights and privileges enjoyed by domestic corporations it did not transform such corporations into domestic or resident corporations