Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 6 . 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b). 7 . 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). See Kentucky Ass'n of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, 538 U.S. 329, 341-42, 123 S.Ct. 1471, 155 L.Ed.2d 468 (2003) (defining elements required to satisfy the clause). 8 . Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Welfare Plan, 370 F.3d 869, 875-76 (9th Cir.2004). We review the district court’s choice of the standard of review de novo. Id. To the extent the plaintiffs question the district court’s ability to renew Reliance’s summary judgment motion, we note that the plaintiffs faced the complete dismissal of their complaint when Reliance first made its motion and briefed all relevant issues. In these circumstances, renewal of the motion was not inappropriate. 9 . See Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 223, 120 S.Ct. 2143, 147 L.Ed.2d 164 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 . See Sandy v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an agreement may provide elements of a plan by setting out rules under which beneficiaries will be entitled to care (B) holding that nonsignatory settlor and trust beneficiaries could be compelled to arbitrate under account agreement between trustee and merrill lynch which contained an arbitration clause because agreement was the underlying basis for all the claims of the beneficiaries and there would have been no claims without the agreement (C) holding that the proceeds of a pension plan could be garnished after they had been paid out to the beneficiaries (D) holding that beneficiaries of an alleged will may recover reasonable expenses and attorneys fees when defending a will in good faith (E) recognizing that there may be multiple beneficiaries of federal programs
Output (English): holding that the proceeds of a pension plan could be garnished after they had been paid out to the beneficiaries