Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): described the manner of the attack), adopted by 2012 WL 1014821 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2012). In alleging that his face and hand were “smashed” by Defendants Yega and Gibson, (see Compl. § II), the Complaint puts forth more than a de minimis use of force that parallels the degree of force found by other courts to be sufficiently serious under the objective prong. See, e.g., Santiago v. Westchester Cty., No. 13-CV-1886, 2014 WL 2048201, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2014) (finding allegations that a prison official “threw [the] [p]laintiff to the ground, twisted his arm, [and] picked him up off the ground while squeezing his throat ... lead to a plausible inference that the force inflicted was malicious and wanton”); Taylor v. Wilde, No. 11-CV-3608, 2012 WL 2860999, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Phelan v. Hersh, No. 10-CV-11, 2011 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the act of slamming  is objectively sufficiently serious to state a claim for relief under the eighth amendment alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted (B) recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted (C) recognizing that procedural sentencing error is harmless if the resulting sentence is not longer thanthat to which the defendant would otherwise be subject alterations and internal quotation marks omitted (D) holding that independent review is not de novo review of the constitutional issue but only a means to determine whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable internal quotation marks omitted (E) holding that the agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a continuance where the petitioner was only at the first step in a long and discretionary process and relief was speculative at best alterations and internal quotation marks omitted
Output (English): holding that independent review is not de novo review of the constitutional issue but only a means to determine whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable internal quotation marks omitted