Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to which the person or body authorized to exercise the delegated authority is directed to conform.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S, 361, 372, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (upholding the United States Sentencing Guidelines). See id. at 390, 109 S.Ct. 647 (pointing out that the federal “sentencing function long has been a peculiarly shared responsibility” rather than “the exclusive constitutional province of any one Branch” and finding no unconstitutional delegation of legislative power). As the Fifth Circuit has pointed out, there are at least four limitations on a prosecutor’s discretion with respect to nonstatutory aggravating factors. See United States v. Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 239-40 (5th Cir.1998), aff'd, 527 U.S. 373, 119 S.Ct. 2090, 144 L.Ed.2d 895 (4th Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414 
 Holding statements: (A) holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty (B) holding that any delegation of legislative authority was permissible without deciding whether there was in fact any delegation (C) holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable (D) holding that it is improper to categorize certain factors  as simply out of bounds in deciding whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop (E) recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest
Output (English): holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable