Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): right of a party....”). 68 . United. States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433, 438 (5th Cir.2008). 69 . Id. 70 . United States v. Davis, 393 F.3d 540, 548 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Restivo, 8 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir.1993)). 71 . Skelton, 514 F.3d at 442 (citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316-17, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)). 72 . Id. at 439 (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674(1986)). 73 . Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 680, 106 S.Ct. 1431. 74 . United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1389 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Leake, 642 F.2d 715, 718 (4th Cir.1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 75 . United States v. Farias-Farias, 925 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir.1991). 76 . See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431 (<HOLDING>). 77 .Id. at 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431 (the factors 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that before an error can be held harmless the reviewing court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendants conviction (B) holding that the constitutionally improper denial of a defendants opportunity to impeach a witness for bias like other confrontation clause errors is subject to chapman harmlesserror analysis (C) holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding that the improper denial of a defendants opportunity to impeach for bias is subject to harmlesserror review in which the reviewing court must determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Output (English): holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt