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.

Example Input: 421 U.S. 723, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975), and is consistent with the holdings in Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 382, 103 S.Ct. 683, 687, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983), and in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, supra. Blue Chip Stamps held that a section 10(b) plaintiff must be a purchaser or seller of a security, and thus limited standing under the 1934 Act to “plaintiffs ... who have at least dealt in the security to which the prospectus, representation, or omission relates.” Id. 421 U.S. at 747, 95 S.Ct. at 1931. Put and call option trading on an underlying security is directly affected by the prospecti, representations and omissions of the issuer of the underlying security. See Deutschman, 841 F.2d at 506. Cf. Kirby v. Cullinet Software, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 303 (D.Mass.1987) (<HOLDING>). In Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members (B) holding that class representatives cannot appear pro se (C) holding that sellers of covered calls are not atypical class representatives (D) holding that a class representatives ignorance of the case is not a bar to certification unless it impairs the representatives ability to vigorously prosecute the action (E) holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: until he received the order in March 2001. While in ordinary circumstances he likely would be faulted for not exercising due diligence to determine the disposition of his motions during the two year period contemplated by the rule, petitioner had no reason to make such an inquiry in this case because he believed that in accordance with the April 1999 order, he had been permitted to withdraw his motions to vacate sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that Snell has pled an adequate basis for avoiding the two year time limitation imposed by the rule. We further conclude that he otherwise timely sought relief to the extent his petition seeking belated appeal was filed within two years of his discovery of the existence of September 1998 order. Cf. Adams v. State, 543 So.2d 1244 (Fla.1989)(<HOLDING>). In response to our order to show cause why a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a rule 3850 motion based upon new facts or a significant change in the law must be filed within two years of the time such facts become known or such change is announced (B) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody (C) holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances (D) holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms (E) holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: debtors are accorded notice before their wages are garnished, are notified of the procedure by which to challenge the garnishment within ten days of receiving that notice, are given the opportunity to object after the court orders the garnishment, and are entitled to a hearing within seven days of that objection. R. 4:59-1(d). Consistent with Caldwell, those protections are at least as comprehensive, if not more so, than those required by other jurisdictions. See, e.g., McCahey v. L.P. Investors, 774 F.2d 543, 549 (2d Cir.1985) (finding due process satisfied when judgment debtors are notified about garnishment and available exemptions after property is seized, and when they have opportunity to challenge seizure promptly); Brown v. Liberty Loan Corp., 539 F.2d 1355, 1368 (5th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, we agree with those courts that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that notice of condemnation and availability of a state court injunction writ of mandamus and writ of certiorari in an eminent domain case satisfied due process (B) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (C) holding that due process does not require a hearing where only a potential privilege to purchase united states land is involved (D) holding that due process does not require notice or hearing before writ of garnishment issues (E) recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process
Example Output:
(D)