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.

Q: but clear, as a matter of law, that the “military exception” applies only to the person who served in the armed forces — not his or her children. As I read Cuevas-Gaspar, no one in that case, much less the mother whose residency status was imputed, served in the United States military. The principle behind the Cuevas-Gaspar imputation rule is to avoid separating children from their permanent resident parents with whom they have resided for a significant period of time in the United States. See Cuevas-Gaspar, 430 F.3d at 1024 (“[W]e are instructed ... that our immigration statutes and regulations are replete with provisions ‘giving a high priority to the relation between permanent resident parents and their children.’ ”); see also Lepe-Guitron v. INS, 16 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The so-called “military exception” of 8 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the evidence did not support a finding that the parents intentionally abandoned their child (B) recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children (C) recognizing that because the state has cognizable interests in the safety of children in its jurisdiction neglectful parents may be separated from their children (D) recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children (E) holding in the primary case on which cuevasgaspar relied imputation of a parents residency status to a child may be justified where deportation would sever the bonds between parents and their children who had resided legally in the united states for the better part of their lives

A: holding that the evidence did not support a finding that the parents intentionally abandoned their child
****
Q: it was given voluntarily. If these questions are resolved in favor of the State, then, without being advised of the court’s decision, the jury shall be instructed that they should decide whether in view of all the same circumstances the defendant’s confession is true. If they find that it is not true, then they must treat it as inadmissible and disregard it for purposes of discharging them function as fact finders on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. [Id. at 272, 294 A.2d 23.] See also State v. Thomas, 76 N.J. 344, 366, 387 A.2d 1187 (1978) (reaffirming Hampton principle that trial court is sole arbiter of voluntariness of defendant’s statements and rejecting defendant’s invitation to overrule decision); State v. Bowman, 165 N.J.Super. 531, 537-39, 398 A.2d 908 (App.Div.1979) (<HOLDING>). The New Jersey Rules of Evidence codified the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding prosecutors statement to jury on summation that trial court had previously found defendants two confessions voluntary constituted reversible error even though trial court gave hampton charge because it failed to instruct jury to disregard prosecutors statement (B) holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge (C) holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement (D) holding no injury to ashley shown by statement to widow of murder victim that was not in evidence because trial court gave sua sponte instruction to jury to disregard statement and statement did not contradict ashleys testimony (E) holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error

A: holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge
****
Q: of the sale proceeds as disposable income to be distributed under the plan. b. Case Law Case law supports this analysis. Only regular income and substitutes therefor can be counted in the determination of disposable income for the purposes of the chapter 13 test. See, e.g., Hagel, 184 B.R. at 799 (social security disability payments); In re Jackson, 173 B.R. 168, 171 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1994) (workers compensation proceeds); In re Minor, 177 B.R. 576, 582-83 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1995) (same). The test is whether the asset in question is an anticipated stream of payments. If it is a stream of payments, the payments must be included in projected income. If the asset is not a stream of payments, it is not included. See, e.g., Solomon v. Cosby (In re Solomon), 67 F.3d 1128, 1132 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); In re Bicsak, 207 B.R. 657, 661-61 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a claimant is required to establish a physical inability to follow any occupation from which he can earn a reasonably substantial income rising to the dignity of an income or livelihood although the income may not be as much as was earned prior to the disability (B) holding that projected disposable income for an abovemedian income debtor would not include a deduction for contractual payments on undersecured debt that the debtor would not actually be required to pay because the plan bifurcated the claim or surrendered the collateral (C) holding that net farm income when applied to a producer in the fishing industry means net income from all fishing activity not just that income from a particular commodity and further providing that the regulations make it reasonably clear that the determination of   net fishing income is not to be made solely on the basis of tax return information if other information is relevant to determining the producers net income from all   fishing sources (D) holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources (E) holding that withdrawals from individual retirement accounts were not income or income replacements because the debtor was not receiving a regular distribution from the accounts

A:
holding that a claimant is required to establish a physical inability to follow any occupation from which he can earn a reasonably substantial income rising to the dignity of an income or livelihood although the income may not be as much as was earned prior to the disability
****