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.

Input: Consider Input: the interests of the group of claimants as .a whole necessitates the setting of deadlines to dislodge claims stalled in the claims resolution process. Finally, the Court notes that this conclusion is completely consistent with prior decisions of this Court. Indeed, the Court has, on several occasions, upheld Trust deadlines. See Almalich v. Dalkon Shield Claimant’s Trust, Docket No. 19103 (July 29,1994) (deadline regarding submission of claims material within day-to-day operations); Gunnell, Docket No. 19331 (ADR deadlines within day-to-day operations). Moreover, the Court has affirmed the Trust’s disallowance authority. See e.g., Almalich, Docket No. 19103 (affirming disallowance of claims for failure to submit final claim materials by the stated deadline); Mantush, Docket No. 18298 (<HOLDING>); Besag, Docket No. 19492 (affirming Trust 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust (B) holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal (C) recognizing where naked trust created the division of naked legal title and equitable title which may be united at option of cestui que trust (D) recognizing trust authority to disallow claims for failing to select an option by july 1 1991 deadline (E) holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B). Thus, it is clear that, under some circumstances, injunctions can constitute claims which are dischargeable in bankruptcy. The court must determine whether this case presents such a circumstance. A number of courts have considered whether an injunction prohibiting future breaches of a noncompete agreement can constitute a claim under Section 101(5)(B), reaching conflicting results based on a variety of reasonings. See e.g., In re Oseen, 133 B.R. 527 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991) (finding that the injunction did not constitute a claim); In re Udell, 18 F.3d 403 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Ward, 194 B.R. 703 (Bankr.D.Mass.1996) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim (B) holding an appeal of injunction moot where the injunction expired three months before the appellate court heard arguments in the case (C) holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction (D) holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act (E) holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified

Output: (A)


Input: Consider Input: to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.”); United States v. Ng, 699 F.2d 63, 71 (2d Cir.1983) (concluding that a “policy [that] is merely an internal guideline for exercise of prosecutorial discretion [is] not subject to judicial review,” and emphasizing that the policy “is not a statute or regulation; nor is it constitutionally mandated”); see also United States v. Craveiro, 907 F.2d 260, 264 (1st Cir.1990) (“[T]he internal guidelines of a federal agency, that are not mandated by statute or the constitution, do not confer substantive rights on any party.”); cf. Firstland Int’l, Inc. v. INS, 377 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Montilla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162, 166 (2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding moot appeal from revocation of visa petition where immigrant subsequently obtained lpr status (B) holding that the beneficiary of a form 1130 visa petition did not have standing to challenge a denied petition (C) holding no abuse of discretion where ij denied aliens request for continuance because alien had no immigrant visa available and it was unlikely attorney general would exercise discretion to permit excludable alien to stay (D) holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available (E) holding that the ins was deprived of any discretion to revoke approval of an immigrant visa petition when it failed to follow statutorilymandated notice requirement


Output: (E)