Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): compliance with such a complex set of requirements is practically impossible, and we will not infer congressional intent that a state achieve the impossible”), rev’d on other grounds, Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 436, 124 S.Ct. 899, 157 L.Ed.2d 855 (2004). Rather, we consider whether it is absolutely clear that a systemic computer problem of the type that caused Unan’s and Quintino’s injuries could not reasonably be expected to recur. Defendant failed to put forward sufficient evidence to meet this standard. Although there is evidence that DHHS took significant steps to correct the systemic problem, evidence of substantial compliance does not moot a case unless it is “absolutely clear” that the violations could not reasonably recur. See Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 193, 120 S.Ct. 693 (<HOLDING>). Here, defendant argues that by the end of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that due process required a hearing so the putative father would have an opportunity to present evidence to show as a factual matter that he could not reasonably have complied with utahs statutory requirements or deadlines because he could not reasonably have expected his baby to be born in utah (B) holding that evidence necessary to the governments rebuttal of a defendants case could not be excluded under rule 403 but could have been if it was introduced only to bolster the prosecutions case (C) holding that motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the movant demonstrates controlling law or factual matters put before the court on the underlying motion that the movant believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the courts decision (D) holding that defendants substantial compliance with its permit requirements  might moot the case  but  only if  these events made it absolutely clear that defendants violations could not reasonably be expected to recur (E) holding that if the defendants breach does not permit the plaintiff to reduce its overhead then defendant is not entitled to a reduction in the damages awarded against it
Output (English): holding that if the defendants breach does not permit the plaintiff to reduce its overhead then defendant is not entitled to a reduction in the damages awarded against it