Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and directly connected to the offense, under the facts of the case taken as a whole. For example, if the defendant engaged in several acts of mailing threatening letters to the same victim over a period of years (including acts that occurred prior to the offense), then for purposes of determining whether subseetion[ ](b)(l) ... [applies], the court shall consider only those prior acts of threatening the victim that have a substantial and direct connection to the offense. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A6.1(b)(l), cmt. n. 2. The pivotal inquiry when determining the appropriateness of a § 2A6.1(b)(l) enhancement is whether the defendant intended to carry out the threat, and the likelihood that he would actually do so. United States v. Gary, 18 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, essential to the determination 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute (B) holding that any acts that evidence an intent to carry out the threats may form the basis for a  2a61bl enhancement (C) holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation (D) holding that unrebutted evidence can and should form the basis for summary judgment (E) holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial
Output (English): holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute