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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: 676 F.2d 969, 975 (3d Cir. 1982); Carty v. Schneider, 986 F. Supp. 933, 38 V.I. 213 (D.V.I. 1997). In contrast, a fine is a criminal contempt sanction if the amount of the fine is fixed and imposed unconditionally as a punishment for past disobedience. See Hicks, 485 U.S. at 632-33 ("An unconditional penalty is criminal in nature because it is solely and exclusively punitive in character." (citations and quotations omitted)); see also Latrobe Steel Co., 545 F.2d at 1343 ("[T]he penalties arising out of adjudications of criminal contempt are generally an absolute fine of a specific amount . . . ."). Criminal fines are retroactive, and may not be avoided by purging the contemptuous conduct. See Penfield Co. of Cal. v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585, 590, 67 S. Ct. 918, 921, 91 L. Ed. 1117 (1947) (<HOLDING>). Here, the June 13, 2006, order was phrased in
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that because a district courts determination of the appropriate fine involves factual issues including the defendants ability to pay the fine imposedthe district courts calculation of the fine is entitled to deference and can be reversed on appeal only for clear error (B) holding that where the language of the statute required the imposition of both confinement of which a portion could not be suspended and a fine the court had the ability to impose a fine and then suspend it (C) holding that a flat unconditional fine for 50 was a criminal sanction because the contemnor had no subsequent opportunity to reduce or avoid the fine through compliance (D) holding that a fiftytwo million dollar fine could not be imposed as a sanction for criminal contempt except through a jury trial (E) holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine

Output: (C)

Input: Consider Input: to its policy holders. For example, the company's purpose can be readily revealed to the policyholder by the addition of a single line or sentence to the declarations page or by defining the term "driver name." Thus, this court concludes that the arguments of the defendant are unavailing and that although our holding in this case comports with that of the minority of jurisdictions, we are of the opinion that it represents the better public policy. "And we are also convinced that reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page cannot be contradicted by the policy's boilerplate unless the declaration page itself clearly so warns the insured." Id. at 347, 638 A.2d at 892; see also Elliott Leases Cars, Inc. v. Quigley, 118 R.I. 321, 327, 373 A.2d 810, 812 (1977) (<HOLDING>). In conclusion, therefore, we affirm the
Holding statements: (A) holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant (B) holding that an ordinary reader in the face of such detail would be warranted in concluding that any significant limitation on collision insurance would have been explicitly noted (C) holding that the patentees argument that any shape would be equivalent to the conical limitation would write such a limitation out of the claim (D) holding that it is most improbable that a significant change to bankruptcy procedure would have been made without even any mention in the legislative history (E) holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: National Bank of Richmond, 223 Va. 519, 290 S.E.2d 863 (1982), held that exempt funds deposited into a general account and commingled with non-exempt funds lose their exempt status. Accordingly, because these funds have been commingled with non-exempt funds in a general bank account, which has been used by both parties to pay individual and joint bills, the social security benefits are no longer exempt. While the court is aware that several federal courts have questioned the holding of Bernardini, the court will adhere to this binding precedent. See NCNB Financial Services v. Shumate, 829 F. Supp. 178, 180-81 (W.D. Va. 1993), aff'd sub nom. NationsBank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Shumate, 45 F.3d 427 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. den. 515 U.S. 1161, 132 L. Ed. 2d 859, 115 S. Ct. 2616 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The Bernardini court distinguished Philpott
Holding statements: (A) holding a social security number is not private (B) holding that the express language of 407a and the clear intent of congress that social security benefits not be attachable (C) holding that under 42 usc 407a social security benefits commingled with other nonexempt funds in a bank account remain exempt if the funds are reasonably traceable to social security income (D) holding that use of social security benefits satisfied child support obligation (E) holding that 407a imposes a broad bar against the use of any legal process to reach all social security benefits
Output: (C)