Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the guidelines.” United States v. Urias-Escobar, 281 F.3d 165, 167 (5th Cir.2002). 5 . This apparent error is further illuminated by the history of § 3B1.1. The Guideline was amended in 1993 to include Note 2 in order to resolve a circuit split over the same interpretation at issue here: whether management of assets warranted an adjustment. U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 500; compare, e.g., United States v. Carroll, 893 F.2d 1502 (6th Cir.1990) (requiring a degree of control over other participants), United States v. Fuller, 897 F.2d 1217 (1st Cir.1990) (same), United States v. Mares-Molina, 913 F.2d 770 (9th Cir.1990) (same), and United States v. Fuentes, 954 F.2d 151 (3d Cir.1992) (same), with United States v. Chambers, 985 F.2d 1263 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 6 . See United States v. Ramos-Paulino, 488 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk (B) recognizing that the governments failure to prevail is a factor that may be considered (C) holding that intent to evade collective bargaining obligations is merely one factor among many that must be considered (D) holding that exercising control over other participants is one factor among many that should be considered not a requirement for applying the adjustment (E) holding that guidelines although advisory and only one factor among others to be considered in arriving at a reasonable sentence are entitled to substantial weight in the sentencing decision
Output (English): holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk