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: for [her] employer! ] to operate efficiently and effectively." Id. at 418-19, 126 S.Ct. 1951. The point of this inquiry, then, is "both to promote the individual and societal interests that are served when employees speak as citizens on matters of public concern and to respect the needs of government employers attempting to perform their im portant public functions." Id. at 420, 126 S.Ct. 1951. With that premise as a backdrop, the Supreme Court held that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." Id. at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951; see also Haynes v. City of Circleville, 474 F.3d 357, 364-65 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Garcetti and its Sixth Circuit progeny
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern (B) holding that pursuant to garcetti plaintiffs speech made in the course of his official duties was unprotected as a matter of law (C) holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties (D) holding that garcetti barred claims involving speech not necessarily required by the plaintiffs job duties but nevertheless related to his job duties (E) holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected
Example Output: holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern

Example Input: addressing the covenant not to sue continues with a statement that "this Release" does not prohibit an employee from filing a charge with the EEOC, again intimating that the terms are interchangeable. We can easily see how a participant under this Agreement could construe the statement that "[t]his covenant not to sue does not apply to actions based solely under the [ADEA]" as an exception to the general release, not just an exception to the covenant not to sue. Given the lack of clarity in the Agreement, and IBM's declination to tell Thomforde what it meant by the language, we hold that the Agreement is not written in a manner calculated to be understood by the intended participants as required by the OWBPA. Cf. Cole v. Gaming Entm't, L.L.C., 199 F.Supp.2d 208, 214 (D.Del.2002) (<HOLDING>). As such, the Agreement is ineffective as a
Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants waiver was knowing and intelligent even when police withheld information from defendant that his attorney sought to consult with him (B) holding that a trial courts order that defendant not consult with his attorney during an overnight recess during trial violated the sixth amendment (C) recognizing fifth amendment right to be informed of right to remain silent to have questions cease and to consult with an attorney before being subjected to psychiatric examination that may be used against defendant in capital sentencing proceedings (D) holding that if a suspect indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning (E) holding language reciting that employee acknowledges that heshe has been advised to consult with an attorney prior to executing this agreement was insufficient to meet statutory requirement that employer must advise employee in writing to consult an attorney prior to signing the waiver
Example Output:
holding that defendants waiver was knowing and intelligent even when police withheld information from defendant that his attorney sought to consult with him