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.
--------
Question: even if the 1993 judgment was final and appealable, they may challenge the merits of the 1993 judgment in this appeal from the 1995 order. This appeal is untimely only if the District Court’s 1993 decision — which ordered only that ISP submit a plan to remedy the constitutional flaws in its policy — was a final judgment, appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We believe that the District Court’s 1993 order was no more final under § 1291 than the one at issue in Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist., 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1987), which held that a district court order to a school district to submit a plan to remedy an unconstitutional atmosphere of racial hostility was not an appealable final judgment. Id. at 539; see also Hendrickson v. Griggs, 856 F.2d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The November 1995 judgment is, therefore, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (B) holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under  1292a1 (C) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (D) holding injunction ordering prison to submit plan for reformation of unconstitutional prison conditions not appealable as interlocutory order under 28 usc  1292a1 (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable

Answer: holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable


Question: from California. A Michigan federal magistrate judge ordered his return to California. The following day, a criminal complaint based on the September 1995 heroin sales was filed against Jackson. Jackson was never served, did not appear, and the government subsequently dismissed the complaint without prejudice on November 20,1996. On January 6, 1998, Jackson was indicted for distribution of herom in the September 1995 transactions. Jackson eventually was returned to Michigan in November 1998, appeared before a magistrate judge on November 24, 1998, and was arraigned on December 1,1998. Trial was originally scheduled for March 25, 1999. On March 22, 1999, Jackson’s counsel, Stephen Rabaut, moved to dismiss the mdictment based on United States v. Ovalle, 136 F.3d 1092 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The district court dismissed the indictment 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that eastern michigans federal grand jury system violated equal protection (B) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (C) holding that the state law violated equal protection principles (D) holding complaint that sentence violated equal protection was waived because of failure to object at trial (E) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection

Answer: holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection


Question: Id. § 815.9(4). If the costs and fees are not paid within this time frame, the court is required to enter judgment against the person for any unpaid amounts. Id. § 815.9(9). This process takes place entirely in the context of the criminal case. Under this statutory scheme, as applied to an acquitted defendant, the “final judgment on behalf of the state” in the criminal proceeding is the cost judgment entered against the acquitted person in favor of the state. Therefore, under the definition of “prosecution” applicable to chapter 815, the criminal prosecution includes the pos-tacquittal proceedings. We conclude these statutory provisions evidence a legislative intent to extend a defendant’s right to counsel to these postacquittal proceedings. Cf. White, 201 F.3d at 745, 752-53 (<HOLDING>); State v. Jones, 92 Wash.App. 555, 964 P.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal (B) holding that the granting of an application to file an appeal out of time is considered part of the direct appeal process under oklahoma law (C) holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived (D) holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal (E) holding that because ohio law required ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claims be raised in an application to reopen the direct appeal of the criminal case such claims were part of the direct appeal entitling defendant to the assistance of counsel

Answer:
holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal