Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 2520(b)(3). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed with regard to its decision not to award compensatory damages to the plaintiffs, and reversed with regard to its order requiring Benjamin Culbertson to pay a part of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. 1 . Nalley was decided May 17, 1995, after the briefs in this case were filed. 2 . The language of 18 U.S.C. § 2515 is, in pertinent part, "Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence at any trial ... if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this subchapter." 3 . Accord: Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Plaintiffs contend an unpublished 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights  ie whether it was involuntary  or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda  (B) holding that evidence seized in violation of a defendants fourth amendment rights was admissible for purposesof impeachment (C) holding that a confession obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest is not admissible (D) holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision (E) holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment
Output (English): holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision