TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: of the debt itself that is the key factor in determining dischargeability.” 21 B.R. at 912. Therefore, in determining whether a debt to a former spouse is in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support, the court must look behind the designation assigned by a state court, or by the parties themselves, as to whether or not a particular obligation was in the nature of support or a property settlement, and to determine the true nature of the obligation. Parisi v. White, 26 B.R. 572, 574 (Bankr.R.I.1983). With this test in mind, we turn to the relevant factors in determining wheth er payments are m the nature of support. Whether the payments are made contingent upon conditions reflecting a need for support is one relevant factor. Cf. Warren v. Taff, 10 B.R. 101, 104 (Bankr.Conn.1981) (<HOLDING>). In the present case the child support 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that transfer was proper remedy for improper venue even though the issue of transfer was not raised until the motion hearing in circuit court (B) holding that the failure to condition a transfer on death or remarriage of the wife was a factor showing that the transfer was not in the nature of alimony (C) holding transfer restriction granted right of first refusal in event of voluntary or involuntary transfer of stock (D) holding that a denial of transfer was not an adverse employment action where the plaintiff asserted only that the transfer would allow him to work closer to home (E) holding that oneyear period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer

SOLUTION: holding that transfer was proper remedy for improper venue even though the issue of transfer was not raised until the motion hearing in circuit court

PROBLEM: proceeding”). Here, the only evidence that th .Crim.App.2000) (stating, in motion to suppress context, “[T]he judge may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s testimony, even if that testimony is not controverted”). Appellant’s and Sanchez’s after-the-fact, out-of-court averrals about appellant’s ability to understand the proceedings and waivers he signed were untimely factual statements in appellant’s self-interest. Even though the State did not offer affidavits to controvert appellant’s and Sanchez’s affidavits, it was within the trial court’s discretion to disbelieve the assertions contained in those affidavits that appellant does not read or speak English. See Charles, 146 S.W.3d at 210; Shanklin, 190 S.W.3d at 167; see also Phuong Anh Thi Le, 300 S.W.3d at 327 (<HOLDING>). The trial court, and not this Court, is in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record (B) holding that in reviewing trial courts ruling on habeas corpus petition reviewing court must defer to all of trial courts implied factual findings supported by record (C) recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous (D) holding that as long as the findings are supported by substantial evidence the board must defer to the hearing committees credibility determinations because they are subsidiary findings of basic facts (E) holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record

SOLUTION: holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record

PROBLEM: the firearm, as opposed to any use that might cause danger,” Aplt. Br. at 10, '“[t]he simple possession of an unregistered firearm ... is not covered by [the Section 4B1.2] list.” Id. at 11. He cites to the commentary to this section of the sentencing guidelines, which provides that “the term ‘crime of violence’ does not include the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 App. Note 2. Dwyer argues since “the commentary is a binding interpretation of the phrase ‘crime of violence,’ ” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 47, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993), simple possession of an unregistered firearm is not a crime of violence. In United States v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 1403, 1411 (10th Cir.1990), in discussing the unlawful possession of an unre h Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Allegree, 175 F.3d 648, 651 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence obtained following the polices unconstitutional search of the defendants backpack which was not with the defendant at the time of the search and in which the police found a sawedoff shotgun was sufficiently far from the unconstitutional search because the challenged evidence was obtained as a result of the polices decision to pursue the defendant a decision they would have made even absent finding the sawedoff shotgun because the defendant was a person of interest in their underlying investigation (B) holding that possession of a sawedoff shotgun under 26 usc  5861d is a crime of violence and noting that congress found certain firearms  sawedoff shot guns and grenades  to be inherently dangerous and lacking in usefulness other than for violent and criminal purposes (C) holding that for purposes of  4b12 possession of a sawedoff shotgun in violation of  5861d is a crime of violence because by its very nature a sawedoff shotgun always creates a serious risk of physical injury to another (D) holding that possession of sawedoff shotgun is violent felony as defined by armed career criminal act (E) holding that possession of a sawed off shotgun is a crime of violence

SOLUTION:
holding that evidence obtained following the polices unconstitutional search of the defendants backpack which was not with the defendant at the time of the search and in which the police found a sawedoff shotgun was sufficiently far from the unconstitutional search because the challenged evidence was obtained as a result of the polices decision to pursue the defendant a decision they would have made even absent finding the sawedoff shotgun because the defendant was a person of interest in their underlying investigation