instruction:
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:
issue in question.” Bradley Ventures, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., 371 Ark. 229, 264 S.W.3d 485, 490 (2007). UAMS maintains that collateral estoppel applies to Dodson I and II, barring both of Dodson’s pending claims, but our discussion is considerably narrower. First, I would set aside Dodson I because I am uncertain that the court’s relevant finding was “essential to the judgment.” Powell, 289 S.W.3d at 444. Second, I would set aside Count II, which is Dodson’s impliedeontract claim. Importantly, Count II is premised on UAMS’s conduct after Dodson II, i.e., sending Dodson bills for the embryo storage fees, and therefore cannot be precluded by the earlier chancery court decision. See Ripplin Shoals Land Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1038, 1044 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); cf. id. at 1042 (“[R]es judicata does not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an assignment does not modify the terms of the underlying contract (B) recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment (C) holding that a prior judgment regarding a permit to modify an existing bridge does not preclude a plaintiff from challenging a decision on a new application describing and a different bridge design (D) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion (E) holding untimeliness of motion to modify medical insurance payment did not preclude motion to modify maintenance
answer:
holding that an assignment does not modify the terms of the underlying contract


question:
the statute.” 167 F.3d at 992 (citing Haun, 90 F.3d at 1100; United States v. Cavalier, 17 F.3d 90, 93 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212, 1217-18 (3d Cir.1993)). See also United States v. Valuck, 286 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir.2002) (reaffirming the holding in Cavalier that “the cashing of an illegally obtained check can promote the completion of an underlying unlawful act”). The Federal Express packages at issue in the money laundering counts contained checks fraudulently obtained by IDM. A rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the transfer of the checks from Barbados to New York and the negotiation of those checks promoted the underlying mail fraud scheme, and that by facilitating the negotiation of the checks Bo 88831, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832, 842 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing exception to application requirement when employer does not notify employees of available promotion and does not provide formal mechanism for expressing interest in promotion (B) holding no offense of attempted seconddegree murder where statute allows conviction without proof of intent to kill (C) holding that promotion and concealment are alternative bases for a money laundering conviction proof of intent to accomplish either will suffice (D) holding that it is the fact of concealment and not the intent to conceal that is prohibited under 49 usc  1472f (E) holding that concealment is just one factor to consider and is not a mandatory element
answer:
recognizing exception to application requirement when employer does not notify employees of available promotion and does not provide formal mechanism for expressing interest in promotion


question:
(quoting Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp., 796 F.2d 769, 770 (5th Cir.1986)). 17 . See Zambuto v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 544 F.2d 1333, 1335 (5th Cir.1977); Tatum v. Community Bank, 866 F.Supp. 988, 994 (E.D.Tex.1994). 18 . Dft.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 2. 19 . See generally Pit's Aff., Affidavit of Carla Nowell set forth in Plt.’s Resp., and Cloutman Aff. 20 . See Cloutman Aff. at Ex. A & Ex. C(3). 21 . See Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1325 (5th Cir.1996). 22 . Franks v. Bowman Transportation, 495 F.2d 398, 405 (5th Cir.1974) (addressing limitations period under predecessor statute to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5), rev'd on other grounds, 424 U.S. 747, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976); see also Espinoza v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 754 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). 23 . See Zambuto, 544 F.2d at 1335; Tatum, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although it was not clear why plaintiff apparently filed the complaint in this action prior to his receipt of the righttosue notice since issuance of a righttosue notice is not a jurisdictional requirement however the eeocs subsequent issuance of the notice satisfies the statutory requirements in this case (B) holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city (C) holding that mailing of eeoc righttosue notice to address designated by claimant suffices to start 90day period for bringing title vii action unless claimant through no fault of his own failed to receive the notice or for some other equitable reason statute should be tolled until he actually receives notice (D) holding that the state was estopped to argue that the 90day notice period  expired on a date prior to the expiration date it cited to the claimant (E) holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant
answer:

holding that although it was not clear why plaintiff apparently filed the complaint in this action prior to his receipt of the righttosue notice since issuance of a righttosue notice is not a jurisdictional requirement however the eeocs subsequent issuance of the notice satisfies the statutory requirements in this case