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.

Q: even if the 1993 judgment was final and appealable, they may challenge the merits of the 1993 judgment in this appeal from the 1995 order. This appeal is untimely only if the District Court’s 1993 decision — which ordered only that ISP submit a plan to remedy the constitutional flaws in its policy — was a final judgment, appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We believe that the District Court’s 1993 order was no more final under § 1291 than the one at issue in Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist., 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1987), which held that a district court order to a school district to submit a plan to remedy an unconstitutional atmosphere of racial hostility was not an appealable final judgment. Id. at 539; see also Hendrickson v. Griggs, 856 F.2d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The November 1995 judgment is, therefore, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (B) holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under  1292a1 (C) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (D) holding injunction ordering prison to submit plan for reformation of unconstitutional prison conditions not appealable as interlocutory order under 28 usc  1292a1 (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable

A: holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
****
Q: by this Court. The documents presented to the Court are not forms as prescribed by the Secretary of which the Debtors have verified under penalty of perjury. Instead, the Debtors submitted affidavits of Charles D. Tobias and documents entitled “Actual and Constructive Notice of Declaration.” In filing bankruptcy, the Debtors have sought this Court’s protection from creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service. However, the Debtors have continued to ig nore this Court’s orders and the Internal Revenue laws in failing to file tax returns. The Court finds that the Debtors’ disregard of this Court’s orders as well as their duty to file tax returns is evidence that the Debtors lacked good faith in filing this bankruptcy case. Matter of Crayton, 169 B.R. 243, 245 (Bankr.S.D.Ga.1994) (<HOLDING>). Section 1307(c) of Title 11 provides that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to file correct tax returns constitutes bad faith and makes it difficult for the court to confirm a plan (B) holding that a debtors right to strip off a wholly unsecured lien is conditioned on the debtors obtaining confirmation of and performing under a chapter 13 plan that meets all of the statutory requirements rather than on a debtors discharge (C) holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case (D) holding that debtors failure to pay postconfirmation taxes pursuant to terms of court order constituted cause for dismissal as a lack of good faith (E) holding on an objection to confirmation of plan that the debtors failure to file tax returns before filing the chapter 13 plan and debtors failure for six months to comply with federal law constituted a lack of good faith sufficient to warrant dismissal of the case

A: holding that failure to file correct tax returns constitutes bad faith and makes it difficult for the court to confirm a plan
****
Q: find a scheme to defraud. He also conceded in his brief that either Pastor Holmes or the Greater Hope Baptist Church could be classified as the victims of his fraudulent scheme. He argues that there was insufficient evidence of the victim’s travel and that the district court erred in its instruction on this issue. He also asserts that there was insufficient evidence of inducement. A. Basic to Thomas’s arguments regarding the victim’s travel is an issue inherent in each. Both Thomas and the government agree that to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2314, the defendant must induce the victim to travel in interstate commerce. Id. at 164. Thomas argues that Mukes’s travel cannot satisfy the interstate travel requirement of § 2314 because Mukes was not the victim of the fraud. The government th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We agree with our sister circuits that travel 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it (B) holding that where an agent is guilty of independent fraud for his benefit knowledge of the fraud is not imputed to the principal (C) holding that travel by an agent of defrauded corporation is imputed to the victim (D) holding that  10b applies to fraud on corporation by controlling stockholder and that the fact that creditors of the defrauded corporation may be the ultimate victims does not warrant disregard of the corporate entity (E) holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation

A:
holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it
****