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.
Q: sentencing. Either way, the profits were properly a part of the bankruptcy estate which were concealed from the Bankruptcy Court each time Brennan filed a monthly report to the Bankruptcy Court from August 1995 until June of 1997, when the total amount concealed from the bankruptcy trustee stood at $22 million. Because the concealment for which Brennan was formally indicted was still ongoing in 1997, and the original concealment ) requires that "where a defendant alleges any factual inaccuracy in the presentence report, the Court must make: (1) a finding as to the allegation, or (2) a determination that no such finding is necessary because the matter controverted will not be taken into account in sentencing"); see also United States v. Parrott, 148 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). While both Bond and David Donnelly, Val-met's
Holding statements: (A) holding that former fedrcrimp 32c prohibits a court faced with a disputed fact in the sentencing report from adopting it without making a factual finding of its own (B) holding that sentencing court satisfies rule 32c where it adequately states and explains the disputed issue in the case (C) holding that by adopting the presentence report the district court made the requisite finding under the guidelines (D) holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report (E) holding that by blindly adopting the magistrate judges findings apparently without ever having received a report and recommendation the district court violated 636b1
A:
(A)