Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances”). Additionally, a party may authenticate an exhibit by any means listed in Federal Rules of Evidence 901(b) and 902. See Fed.R.Evid. 901(b) (providing ten approaches to authentication such as voice identification, public records, data compilations, and nonexpert opinions on handwriting); Fed.R.Evid. 902 (self-authenticating evidence such as public documents under seal, certified copies of public records, newspapers, and acknowledged documents). While evidence must be authenticated before the court considers it, it does not have to be authenticated with the motion for which it is being used. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550-51 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Prime’s counsel’s affidavit asserting 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the admission of a statement obtained in violation of miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 resulted in harmless error because the defendant repeated the substance of the statement in a later admissible statement (B) holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement (C) holding that the district courts improper admission of an unauthenticated registration statement was harmless because the proponent of the registration statement later properly authenticated the statement in a motion to reconsider (D) holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent (E) holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial
Output (English): holding that the admission of a statement obtained in violation of miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 resulted in harmless error because the defendant repeated the substance of the statement in a later admissible statement