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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: and to seek collateral relief (except for ineffective assistance of counsel),” United States v. Arevalo-Juarez, 464 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir.2006) (citation omitted), but only in judicial districts that participate in a[n] "early disposition program authorized by the Attorney General of the United States and the United States attorney for the district in which the court resides.” U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. This court has rejected Bravo’s argument that the “fast track” program creates a sentencing disparity, and we are bound by decisions of prior panels until overruled by this court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. See United States v. Anaya Castro, 455 F.3d 1249, 1252-1253 (11th Cir.2006) (addressing fast-track programs); United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2 . This court has rejected the government's 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in a multipanel circuit prior panel decisions generally are binding upon newlyconstituted panels (B) holding that the panel is bound by decisions of prior panels (C) holding that decisions by prior panels are binding (D) recognizing that a prior panels holding is binding on all subsequent panels (E) holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels
[A]: (C)


[Q]: (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1999); In re Fisher, 151 B.R. 895, 898 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1993). Other courts have held to the contrary. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 421 B.R. 341, 354-55 (S.D.Tex.2009) (collecting cases); Bank United v. Manley, 273 B.R. 229, 250 (N.D.Ala.2001); In re Tate, 253 B.R. 653, 662 (Bankr.W.D.N.C.2000); In re Williams, 244 B.R. 858, 865-66 (S.D.Ga.2000). There is also disagreement about whether the bankruptcy court may exercise jurisdiction over a nationwide class of debtors or is limited to exercising jurisdiction over debtors whose petitions are filed within the same judicial district. Compare, e.g., In re Noletto, 244 B.R. 845, 849 (Bankr.S.D.Ala. 2000) (permitting nationwide class) with Barrett v. Avco Fin. Servs. Mgmt. Co., 292 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Mass.2003) (<HOLDING>). The class at issue in this case was limited 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions (B) holding court lacks jurisdiction over putative class members whose bankruptcies were discharged outside of judicial district (C) holding that it is not necessary that all putative class members share identical claims (D) holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members (E) holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
[A]: (B)


[Q]: first issue, the Saadats argue that the trial court erred in holding them personally liable for the Sabine Pilot violation. Naifeh argues, and the trial court agreed, that in a corporate setting, individuals can be personally liable for their own torts, including wrongful discharge under Sabine Pilot. We review a trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex.2002). Texas is an employment at will state, meaning that employment contracts can be terminated at will by either party unless they have bargained otherwise. See Fed. Express Corp. v. Dutschmann, 846 S.W.2d 282, 283 (Tex.1993); see also Armijo v. Mazda Int’l, No. 14-03-00365-CV, 2004 WL 1175335, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 27, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). The one common-law exception to the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employment at will agreement is an enforceable contract until terminated by either party (B) holding that a plaintiff had an employment interest until the date his appointment terminated (C) holding that an employment contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will (D) holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract (E) holding that for the purposes of standing to bring an action to recover on a contract privity is established by proving the defendant was a party to an enforceable contract with either the plaintiff or a party who assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff
[A]:
(A)