You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

should only be dismissed if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims, the district court was correct in not dismissing his complaint at this stage in the proceedings. See Tyler v. Cisneros, 136 F.3d 603, 607 (9th Cir.1998); see also Morley, 175 F.3d at 759. AFFIRMED. 1 . This appeal is from a denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. Therefore, we recite facts as alleged in Mishler's second amended complaint and assume them to be true for the purposes of our decision. However, the facts have not yet been proved. See Metro Display Adver. Inc. v. City of Victorville, 143 F.3d 1191, 1193 (9th Cir.1998). 2 . See Mishler v. Nevada Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 896 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) ("Mishler I "); Mishler v. Nevada Bd. of Med.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the verification of mishlers medical license was part of the protected property interest in the license and reversing the district courts dismissal of his complaint (B) holding that the debtors interest in a broadcasting license constitutes property of the estate (C) holding that mishler could amend his complaint because the board had been put on notice that the integrity of its administrative proceedings was at issue and reversing the district courts grant of summary judgment for the board members because no reasonable state official could reasonably believe that malicious deprivation of license verification was lawful (D) holding that board members would not be entitled to qualified immunity for their failure to respond to the ohio board inquiry because it was a ministerial act and reversing the district courts dismissal of mishlers complaint (E) holding that a professionals license is a protected property interest
Output:
holding that the debtors interest in a broadcasting license constitutes property of the estate