With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". That doctrine “prohibits any attachment of property in a court’s registry that would prevent the court from allocating the property in accord with the purpose for which it was deposited.” Id.; see also Maxwell v. California, 341 F.2d 235, 237-38 (9th Cir.1965). Quantum’s requested relief in this case, that the district court order release of the $6 million held in the court’s registry to Quantum, prior to satisfaction of the restitution order, is contrary to the doctrine of custodia legis. Quantum could instead have sought a contingent writ of attachment against the funds, which may allow it to obtain any “excess proceeds ... over and above the amount needed to pay [Austin’s] criminal fines and restitution.” Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d at 1053, 1064; see also Maxwell, 341 F.2d at 238 (<HOLDING>). That there will ultimately be any such excess

A: holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding
B: holding that upon cessation of the purpose for which the fund is taken into the custody of the court  it is entirely proper that a proceeding be instituted by that court to determine its rightful disposition
C: holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide
D: holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the best interest of the children require the continuation of primary physical custody with defendant and secondary custody with plaintiff and the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law for this court to determine whether the guidelines were followed
B.