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.

Input: Consider Input: read to give these words effect in light of the law in certain states, under the plain meaning rule, Green Tree’s position must fail. Herrin, 2007 WL 1975573, at *3. The debtor’s position is also supported by the leading commentators on the Bankruptcy Code. Collier on Bankruptcy states, “[o]nly if a mobile home or cooperative is real property under applicable non-bankruptcy law would the limitations on modification apply, even though the mobile home or cooperative is considered the debtor’s principal residence.” 8 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1322.06[1][a][ii] (Lawrence P. King et al. eds., 15th ed. Revised 2005). Moreover, ignoring the term “real property” within § 1322(b)(2) is contrary to the rules of statutory interpretation. See Discover Bank v. Vaden, 396 F.3d 366, 369 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) This Court does not believe that the result in 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing courts must interpret statutes to give effect to all language used rendering no portion meaningless or superfluous (B) holding courts must give effect to every provision and word in a statute and avoid any interpretation that may render statutory terms meaningless or superfluous (C) holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute (D) holding that courts must give effect to every word when interpreting a statute (E) holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute

Output: recognizing courts must interpret statutes to give effect to all language used rendering no portion meaningless or superfluous


Input: Consider Input: re Haddad), 68 B.R. 944, 948 (Bankr.D.Mass.1987); Williams v. Clark (In re Clark), 91 B.R. 324, 332-34 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988). And, although § 105 “does not authorize the bankruptcy courts to create substantive rights that are otherwise unavailable under applicable law,” Pertuso, 233 F.3d at 423, n. 1; “[b]ankruptcy courts ... enjoy inherent power to sanction parties for improper conduct.” Mapother & Mapother v. Cooper (In re Downs), 103 F.3d 472, 477 (6th Cir.1996). This inherent power authorizes federal courts “to protect their proceedings and judgments in the course of discharging their traditional responsibilities.” Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 823, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 135 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996). See also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991)(<HOLDING>); Jones v. Bank of Santa Fe (In re Courtesy 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it (B) recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals (C) recognizing district courts inherent authority to dismiss with prejudice for abuse of judicial process (D) recognizing inherent power of federal district court to sanction conduct abusive of judicial process (E) recognizing courts inherent power to impose sanctions including attorneys fees for conduct that abuses the judicial process

Output: recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it


Input: Consider Input: Michael Brewer appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 210-month sentence for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Brewer’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. Brewer has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed. With the exception of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Brewer waived his right to appeal his conviction and 210-month sentence. We decline to review Brewer’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). The waiver of the right to appeal the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue (B) holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel (C) holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal (D) holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record (E) holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal only in the unusual cases where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant his sixth amendment right to counsel


Output: holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue