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.

Example Input: that is presumptively constitutional). The only case of which I am aware construing DeFillippo and denying qualified immunity is Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, 279 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2002). But in that case “two Ninth Circuit cases [were] directly on point” because they had declared parallel statutes of other States — permitting an arrest for refusing to identify oneself — unconstitutional. Id. at 881. That of course does not remotely describe today’s case. Nor does Sandul v. Larion, 119 F.3d 1250 (6th Cir.1997), offer any refuge to Leonard. It dealt not with the question whether an officer could be denied qualified immunity for failing to predict a judicial ruling declaring a statute unconstitutional but with whether the statute covered the plaintiffs conduct. See id. at 1256 (<HOLDING>). In the end, Leonard not only asks us to take 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause (B) holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same (C) holding that shouting epithets from a moving car did not provide probable cause to arrest the plaintiff under a disorderlyconduct statute (D) holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest (E) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: of a class consisting of all African-American plant employees. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion to deny class certification on the basis of the appellants’ direct evidence. B. Statistical Evidence Nucor provided the appellants with actual promotion-related job posting and applicant data from January 2001 to February 2006. According to the appellants’ own expert, statistical analysis of this data resulted in a standard deviation of - .84, a result indicating no statistically significant disparity in the actual versus expected percentage of African-American employees successfully bidding on jobs. J.A. 5872-73. The appellants, however, objected to use of the 2001 to 2006 time period because it included job posting and bidding 759 n. 17 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Since the appellants could not prevail based 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard (B) recognizing that differences between the expected value and the observed number greater than two or three standard deviations are significant (C) recognizing the cause of action (D) recognizing cause of action (E) recognizing that a standard deviation greater than two or three excludes chance as the cause of underrepresentation
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: time for filing objections to discharge, see In re Gaines, 932 F.2d 729 (8th Cir.1991)—are not final. See, e.g., In re Rebear, 89 B.R. 314 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1988)(incidental procedural matters not immediately appealable). Those orders pose much less risk of leaving the bankruptcy estate with unwarranted assets or liabilities, or of denying creditors their lawful rights. C. The Finality of the Order in this Case Given the understanding of finality developed above, it is clear that the bankruptcy court’s denial of the motion to convert this ease from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 is not a final order for purposes of § 158(a)(1). See Stewart v. Kutner, 656 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. Unit A1981); In re Hebb, 53 B.R. 1003, 1005 (D.Md.1985); In re Klein/Ray Broadcasting, 100 B.R. 509 (9th Cir. BAP 1987)(<HOLDING>). An order denying a motion to convert does not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a bankruptcy courts decision to convert or dismiss a chapter 11 case is a matter within its discretion (B) holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory (C) holding that a bankruptcy court is given wide discretion to convert a chapter 11 case to chapter 7 for cause and an order for conversion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion (D) holding that an order striking a standing trustees motion to convert a chapter 13 petition to a chapter 7 is interlocutory not final (E) holding that a debtors right to convert his or her chapter 7 case is not absolute
Example Output:
(B)