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.

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 35 . Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 36 . Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 37 . Kimmelman v. Monison, 477 U.S. 365, 381, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052). 38 . Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 39 . The Court notes that the state standard for determining ineffectiveness of counsel applied by the state parallels the federal standard as stated in Strickland. See Baker v. State, 243 Kan. 1, 755 P.2d 493 (1988); Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, 694 P.2d 468 (1985). 40 . Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-52, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). 41 . Id. at 753, 103 S.Ct. 3308. 42 .Id. at 754, 103 S.Ct. 3308. 43 . Id. at 752, 103 S.Ct. 3308 ("Legal 2005) (<HOLDING>). 46 . Moreover, the Court finds no error in
Holding statements: (A) holding that counsel was not deficient for failing to make an objection that lacked merit (B) holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel (C) holding counsel deficient because she could have had no reasonable basis for not objecting to certain inadmissible evidence despite no evidence of counsels strategy (D) holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument (E) holding counsel was not deficient in not objecting to testimony that was permissible within state rules of evidence
(E)

policy becomes a composite of factors that bear on a better answer to the question, 'How shall the losses be distributed?' "). Slain and Kripke argued that "[t]he situation with which we are concerned involves two risks: (1) the risk of business insolvency from whatever cause; and (2) the risk of illegality in securities issuance." Slain & Kripke, supra, at 286. Analyzing the first risk that of business insolvency-Slain and Kripke observed that the absolute priority rule allocates this risk to shareholders. Under the absolute priority rule, "stockholders seeking to recover their investments cannot be paid before provable creditor claims have been satisfied in full." Id. at 261; see generally Consol. Rock Prods. Co. v. Du Bois, 312 U.S. 510, 520-21, 61 S.Ct. 675, 85 L.Ed. 982 (1941) (<HOLDING>); Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Prods. Co., 308
Holding statements: (A) holding that claims raised in later litigation were barred because they could have been fully litigated in chapter 11 reorganization process (B) holding that stockholders cannot participate in a plan of reorganization unless creditors claims have been satisfied in full (C) holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions (D) holding that remedies provided in the bankruptcy code for enforcing a chapter 11 plan of reorganization are not exclusive (E) holding that debtor whose plan of reorganization had been confirmed by bankruptcy court could not later bring lender liability claims against creditors where those claims could have been raised in bankruptcy proceeding
(B)

Although the Providers concede that they have no property interest in remaining part of the state Medicaid program, they assert "a right to due process regarding any submitted claims that are denied by FSSA," and "[a]t a minimum, this requires notice and an opportunity to be heard." (Pis.' Mot. TRO & Prelim. Inj. 15.) This appears to be a valid distinction between property rights. Compare Grason v. State of Ill. Inspector Gen., 559 Fed.Appx. 573, 574 (7th Cir.2014) ("I[t] is doubtful that current Medicaid providers even have a protected interest in continuing in the program.")(citing Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 953 (9th Cir.2009)); see also Senape v. Constantino, 936 F.2d 687, 690-91 (2d Cir.1991), with Pers. Care Prods., Inc. v. Hawkins, 635 F.3d 155, 159 & n. 20 (5th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Tekkno Labs., Inc. v. Perales, 933 F.2d 1093,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the state police is a state agency (B) holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review (C) holding that when a state agency is investigating a providers past payments for fraud neither federal or texas law gives a provider a property right in reimbursements withheld on claims not within the investigations scope but acknowledging that the agency may only refuse to pay for cause and claims may not be withheld indefinitely quoting yorktown med lab inc v perales 948 f2d 84 89 2d cir1991 (D) holding that such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities (E) holding that court may not accept claims of fraud based on speculation
(C)