With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Debtor attended Penn between 1997 and 2001. 4 . There are seven (7) such notes dated between May 22, 1997 and September 27, 2000 written under the PENN Guaranteed Loan Program in principal amounts that aggregate $32,092. In addition, attached to Penn's proof of claim is a promissory note in favor of Penn dated August 31, 2000 in the amount of $1,500.00. 5 . As of the date of confirmation, two (2) separate claims secured by the Debtor’s residence were filed. These two (2) claims totaled $263,606.93. The Debtor’s confirmed plan provides for those claims through the surrender of the secured property. See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(C). On August 14, 2007, presumably because a sale of the property had occurred resulting in no payment to the junior lienholder, one of the two claimants (TRF 86) (<HOLDING>). See generally In re Parker, 334 B.R. 529,

A: holding that state university violated 11 usc  362 and 525 by withholding debtors transcript where debt was dischargeable
B: holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13
C: holding that refusal to provide chapter 7 debtor transcript because of default on student loan was a violation of the automatic stay based on the plain language of 11 usc  362
D: holding that university violated automatic stay by withholding chapter 13 debtors student transcript but that such action at bar did not rise to the level of contempt
D.