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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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: than .08 a the time of the accident, then the jury must also find that the defendant was guilty of the DUI offense. In this case, one expert fixed the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of the crash as .185 or .19. A second expert testified that the defendant had the equivalent of eleven drinks of alcohol in his body at the time of the crash. According to the testimony, the maximum blood alcohol level he could have had at the time of the accident was .20, and the minimum was .12. The defendant had also ingested Valium, which further impaired him. The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove with an unlawful blood alcohol level. As in Dodge, any presumption of impairment issues was a moot concern. See also Searles v. State, 816 So.2d 793, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). The trial court believed that the granting of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the giving of the presumption of impairment instruction was harmless error when there is sufficient evidence of actual impairment such that there is no doubt that the jury would have found impairment even without the erroneous instruction (B) holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error (C) holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error (D) holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction (E) holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction
Output:
holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error