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 See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (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: (2d Cir.1981). 11 . E.g., In Re Morris, 914 F.2d at 466. 12 . Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Metro Communications, Inc., 945 F.2d 635, 647-48 (3rd Cir.1991), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1476, 117 L.Ed.2d 620 (1992). 13 . Id. 14 . Rubin, 661 F.2d at 992-94. 15 . Fairchild made three payments after May 31 totaling $114,597.85. The dates and amounts of those payments are as follows: Date Paid Amount 6/05/89 $10,080.37 6/09/89 - 14,517.48 8/01/89 90,000.00 16 . See, TexBus. & Com.Code Ann. § 26.01(a), (b)(2) (Vernon 1987). 17 . E.g., Haas Drilling Co. v. First National Bank, 456 S.W.2d 886, 890 (Tex.1970); Smith d 510, 515 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that such an approach accords the trial court the opportunity to correct any errors). 24 . E.g. Pou v. Dominion Oil Co., 265 S.W. 886, 888 (Tex.1924) (<HOLDING>); Howell v. Bowden, 368 S.W.2d 842, 846 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if part performance is relied upon to remove the oral agreement from the operation of the statute of frauds clear and convincing proof of performance in pursuance of the alleged agreement must be adduced by the party seeking to enforce it (B) holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds (C) holding sufficient part performance of an oral trust agreement is required to remove it from the statute of frauds (D) holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds (E) holding that full performance takes a contract outof the statute of frauds
Output:
holding that if part performance is relied upon to remove the oral agreement from the operation of the statute of frauds clear and convincing proof of performance in pursuance of the alleged agreement must be adduced by the party seeking to enforce it