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: Jones v. Wilson (In re Wilson), 72 B.R. 956 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.1987); McCullough v. Suter (In re Suter), 59 B.R. 944 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1986). Palmer argues that the BAP erred in distinguishing among the various subsections of section 523 on the issue of the discharge of punitive damages. He notes that courts have found that punitive damages are nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4), which bars discharge of debts “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement or larceny,” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), and under section 523(a)(6), which bars discharge of debts “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity,” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). See, e.g., Klemens v. Wallace (In re Wallace), 840 F.2d 762 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Moraes v. Adams (In re Adams), 761 F.2d 1422, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable (B) holding that punitive damages are not fines (C) holding punitive damages nondischargeable under  523a6 when such damages are based on the same conduct as the underlying nondischargeable judgment (D) holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that both actual and punitive portions of judgment for defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity were nondischargeable (E) holding a court may not award punitive damages

A: (A)
****
Q: tam complaints, Relator Mayes and Relators Lutz and Webster have filed amended complaints. 2 . In briefing related to the multiple pending motions to dismiss, some Defendants argue that the 2010 amendment that made it clear that a claim resulting from an AKS violation was a false claim operated only in a prospective nature, (See, e.g,, Dkt. No. 146-1 at 17). However, this Court finds that the weight of authority supports the conclusion that the 2010 amendment adding 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(g) was merely a clarification of the law; claims tainted by AKS violations constitute false claims for the purposes of the FCA regardless of whether the violation occurred before or after the 2010 amendment. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Wilkins v. United Health Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 295, 312 n.19 (3d Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>); U.S. ex rel. Westmoreland v. Amgen, Inc., 812 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a legislative amendment that appeared to approve the analysis of a recent indiana supreme court case was a clarification rather than an amendment (B) holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment (C) holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel (D) holding that federal rule of civil procedure 15c2 giving court discretion to permit amendment of complaint applies to  2255 petitions insofar as a district court may in its discretion permit an amendment to a petition to provide factual clarification or amplification after the expiration of the oneyear period of limitations as long as the petition itself was timely filed and the petitioner does not seek to add an entirely new claim or new theory of relief (E) holding that the 2010 amendment was a clarification

A: (E)
****
Q: of the writ, the CCA examines the substance of the claim to see if it establishes a prima facie case of retardation, and only upon deciding that question can the state court decide whether remand is appropriate.”). 10 . Brown v. Dretke, 419 F.3d 365, 371 (5th Cir.2005). 11 . 536 U.S. 304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). 12 . Id. at 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 405, 416-17, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986)). 13 . In re Hearn, 418 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir.2005). 14 . Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1, 7 & nn. 24-25 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (citing American Association of Mental Retardation, Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Support 5 (9th ed.1992)). 15 . See Rivera v. Quarterman, 505 F.3d 349, 361-63 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Bri-seno, 135 S.W.3d at 9 (“[T]he 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not err (B) holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant suffered from significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and related limitations in adaptive functioning (C) holding that a district court did not clearly err in finding materiality where the prior art reference at issue had been considered material by examiners in related foreign patent applications (D) holding that a trial court did not clearly err in finding that an attorney fees clause materially altered a contract (E) holding that superior court did not clearly err in finding that the parent had not remedied the problematic conduct

A:
(B)
****