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.

Example Input: transcript has the same character as the act of denying a debtor the opportunity to register for class or to graduate, as it deprives a student of a service that would be available to her were she not a debtor ...” Id. at 534. Numerous courts have examined the issue whether an educational institution violates the automatic stay when it withholds a debtor’s transcript due to an outstanding tuition balance or student loan debt. “The majority view is that the withholding of a debtor’s transcript because of an outstanding tuition balance or unpaid student loans violates the automatic stay.” In re Moore, 407 B.R. 855, 860 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2009) (citing In re Mu’min, 374 B.R. 149, 155 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007)); Parker, 334 B.R. at 534-36; see also In re Carson, 150 B.R. 228, 231 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1993) (<HOLDING>). ANALYSIS Based on the foregoing, the Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order (B) holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void (C) holding that university violated the automatic stay by withholding chapter 7 debtors transcripts because the debts were not yet determined nondischargeable (D) holding that creditors failure to voluntarily turn over property lawfully seized prepetition constituted violation of automatic stay (E) holding that a college withholding delivery of transcripts due to an outstanding prepetition debt is an act to collect in violation of the automatic stay
Example Output: holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order

Example Input: inquiry — • whether New Provo Canyon’s treatment of one individual constituted state action — differs substantially from that in Milonas, irrespective of whether, for purposes of a class action suit, Old Provo Canyon’s treatment of its patients generally constituted state action. Thus, the question here does not present the necessary “like facts” to trigger the stare decisis doctrine. D. Collateral Estoppel For the very same reason, Taylor’s collateral estoppel argument fails. Collateral esto Jones, 29 F.3d at 1553; Colonial Leasing Co. of New England v. Logistics Control Group, 762 F.2d 454 (5th Cir.1985) (discussed below). 13 . Jones, 29 F.3d at 1553-54; Lib. Mut. Ins., 969 F.2d at 1388-89; Holloway, 813 F.2d at 878-79; see also Nipper v. Snipes, 1 F.3d 415, 415-417 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Id. at 1553; see also Lib. Mut. Ins., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (B) holding the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting several photographs of a murder victims body (C) holding that the issue was more appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial (D) holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony (E) holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact
Example Output: holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint

Example Input: not be supported by any evidence”) (emphasis added). Daniel’s point is denied, and the full-order of protection is affirmed. GARYW. LYNCH, J. — CONCURS WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J.— CONCURS 1 . Because the parties share the same last name, we will refer to them by their given names to avoid confusion. In doing so, we do not intend any disrespect or familiarity. 2 . Two additional brothers have become enmeshed in these quarrels — one on the "side" of Steven and the other on the side of Daniel. 3 . All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013. 4 . Daniel concedes in his brief that, absent a defense of justification, "his actions constitute an act of abuse [as defined] under [s]ection 455.010[ (1),]” and he relies on McAlister v. Strohmeyer, 395 S.W.3d 546, 554 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (<HOLDING>). Steven claims in his brief that Daniel waived 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus (B) holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of the defendants requested expert as there was no undue prejudice to the defendant because the defendants claim on the predicted effect of the experts testimony was purely speculative (C) holding that no error was committed where issue of whether the defendant had committed another crime was injected into the trial by the codefendant but was immediately followed by the trial courts instructions to the jury that only the counts listed on the indictment be considered (D) holding no error was committed in denying an order of protection when the trial court found the respondents actions justified under the law (E) holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial
Example Output:
holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus