Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 44-13-100(9). At the same time, the statute serves the purpose of providing creditors a distribution by allowing any additional cash surrender value of the life insurance policy to be included in the bankruptcy estate for distribution. Georgia’s bankruptcy exemptions for life insurance contracts are similar but not identical to the federal bankruptcy exemptions. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(7) and (8). Furthermore, O.C.G.A. § 44-13-100 applies equally to all similarly situated debtors. For a state statute to withstand an equal protection challenge, the statute need not treat bankruptcy debtors and non-bankruptcy debtors the same. Rather, the statute must treat all bankruptcy petitioners alike. See, e.g., Sticka v. Ap-plebaum (In re Applebaum), 422 B.R. 684, 692-693 (9th Cir. BAP 2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Shumaker, 124 B.R. 820 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that californias bankruptcyonly exemption statute did not violate the equal protection clause even though the exemptions differed from exemptions that california accorded to debtors not in bankruptcy (B) holding that the cap does not violate equal protection (C) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection (D) holding that the admission of his juvenile conviction did not violate equal protection (E) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection
Output (English): holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection