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.

[EX Q]: appealed the judgment of the Court of Veterans Appeals to this court. On appeal the Secretary contends that the Court of Veterans Appeals erred by not deferring to the Department’s reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions governing claims for accrued benefits. The Secretary also disputes Mrs. Jones’s assertion that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. ANALYSIS I. Jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the Court of Veterans Appeals is conferred upon this court by 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (1994). Under the express terms of that statute, however, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U 625, 110 S.Ct. 2658, 2663-64, 110 L.Ed.2d 563 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to hear 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district courts remand order effectively invalidating certain regulations of the secretary of health and human services was an immediately appealable order (B) holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable (C) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (D) holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (E) holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order
[EX A]: holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable

[EX Q]: this is irrelevant to the question of whether a loan was made to Busson-Sokolik in the first place. Finding no clear error on the question of whether the funds were in fact transferred to Busson-Sokolik and no defects in the formation of a valid contract between the parties, we affirm the finding that the sum MSOE transferred to Busson-Sokolik was a loan. 2 . “Abuse of discretion” is the clear standard for evaluating a judge’s decision to impose sanctions in a bankruptcy case. See In re Rimsat, Ltd., 212 F.3d 1039, 1046 (7th Cir.2000). While the standard for evaluating a judge’s decision not to impose sanctions in a bankruptcy case is somewhat less clear, we adopt the Sixth Circuit’s approach of using the "abuse of discretion” standard. See In re Downs, 103 F.3d 472, 480 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 3 . An appeal is frivolous "when the result 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion (B) holding that the applicable standard of review for evaluating a bankruptcy courts denial of fed r bankrp 9011 sanctions is abuse of discretion and noting similar approaches taken by the ninth and tenth circuits (C) holding that the standard of review for the denial of rule 11 sanctions is governed by the law of the regional circuit (D) holding that the conclusion that the wiretap was necessary in each situation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and bringing the tenth circuit into accordance with the authority of a majority of other circuits (E) holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review
[EX A]: holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion

[EX Q]: (2005). 7 .For a Petitioner to prevail under the Vaccine Act, "a petitioner must prove either a 'Table' injury or that a vaccine listed on the Table was the cause in fact of an injury (and of an 'Off Table’ injury).” Dec. 2. GBS is not a Table injury. 8 . As proof for the proposition that Dr. Pike’s theory was “probative,” Petitioner cites to or discusses medical and other literature that was never submitted in the case before the Chief Special Master. Vaccine Rule 8(f) states that "any fact or argument not raised specifically in the record before the special master will be considered waived and cannot be raised by either party in proceedings on review of a special master's decision.” RCFC App. B, Vaccine Rule 8(f); see also Jay v. Sec’y of HHS, 998 Fed. 979, 983 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The Court, therefore, will strike these 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below (B) holding that petitioners had abandoned arguments not raised below (C) holding that   1252d1 bars the consideration of bases for relief that were not raised below and of general issues that were not raised below but not of specific subsidiary legal arguments or arguments by extension that were not made below (D) holding that arguments not raised below are waived for appeal (E) holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned
[EX A]:
holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below