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.

[EX Q]: (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1999); In re Fisher, 151 B.R. 895, 898 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1993). Other courts have held to the contrary. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 421 B.R. 341, 354-55 (S.D.Tex.2009) (collecting cases); Bank United v. Manley, 273 B.R. 229, 250 (N.D.Ala.2001); In re Tate, 253 B.R. 653, 662 (Bankr.W.D.N.C.2000); In re Williams, 244 B.R. 858, 865-66 (S.D.Ga.2000). There is also disagreement about whether the bankruptcy court may exercise jurisdiction over a nationwide class of debtors or is limited to exercising jurisdiction over debtors whose petitions are filed within the same judicial district. Compare, e.g., In re Noletto, 244 B.R. 845, 849 (Bankr.S.D.Ala. 2000) (permitting nationwide class) with Barrett v. Avco Fin. Servs. Mgmt. Co., 292 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Mass.2003) (<HOLDING>). The class at issue in this case was limited 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions (B) holding court lacks jurisdiction over putative class members whose bankruptcies were discharged outside of judicial district (C) holding that it is not necessary that all putative class members share identical claims (D) holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members (E) holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Hunt, J., concur. 1 O’Connor later produced a valid concealed weapons permit. 2 Simple possession of a controlled substance is a lesser included offense of possession with intent to deliver. State v. Harris, 14 Wn. App. 414, 418, 542 P.2d 122 (1975); see State v. Sims, 119 Wn.2d 138, 142, 829 P.2d 1075 (1992) ("Where one merely possesses a controlled substance without the statutory element of intent, one is guilty of simple possession under RCW 69.50.401(d), absent unwitting possession.”); State v. Robbins, 68 Wn. App. 873, 877, 846 P.2d 585 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 3 It is not clear when he purchased the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendant could only be sentenced to a single offense under section 1244011 not both conspiracy with intent to deliver and possession with intent to deliver (B) holding second simple possession conviction was not an aggravated felony because it was not prosecuted as recidivist possession (C) holding that possession with intent to distribute and simple possession are the same offense under blockburger (D) holding that trial court may arrest judgment on conviction for possession with intent to deliver and enter judgment of guilt on simple possession (E) holding that the defendants prior drug conviction for simple possession did not constitute a controlled substance offense because the plain language of  4b12b requires that the prior conviction involve possession with intent to distribute
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: damages. In re TMI Litig. Personal Injury Claims, No. 79-0906 (M.D.Pa. order entered Dec. 30, 1982); App. at 162. While these and companion TMI cases were being litigated in state and district court, the Supreme Court decided Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 104 S.Ct. 615, 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), which held in part that states are precluded from regulating the safety aspects of nuclear energy but that states still had authority under the Act to control nonregulatory aspects of nuclear facilities. Id. at 240-41, 256, 104 S.Ct. at 617-18, 625-26. Following the decision in Silkwood, the district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment that had been filed following a Rule 16 confer ence. See In re Three Mile Island Litig., 605 F.Supp. 778, 784 (M.D.Pa.1985) (<HOLDING>) [referred to herein as “TMI I ”]. Shortly 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that punitive damages are not recoverable under viwda (B) holding that punitive damages are recoverable in a claim for retaliation under the flsa (C) holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities under  1988 (D) holding that punitive damages are not recoverable under subsection 216b (E) holding that punitive damages are recoverable under the priceanderson act to the extent that damages assessed under the act would not be paid from federal monies
[EX A]:
(E)

