Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): And, the Dallas Court of Appeals used the Timberwalk factors in analyzing the foreseeability of targeted crime. See Stewart, 214 S.W.3d at 663 (applying Timberwalk to test foreseeability of targeted shooting of employee). Barton produced some evidence of criminal activity at the Whataburger in the years preceding Dean’s murder: in July 1997, six years before the incident, a customer was shot in the parking lot, and another customer in the drive-through lane was robbed and shot in the thigh; in July 1998, a customer was robbed in the drive-through lane; in June 1999, a customer’s purse was stolen; in July 2000, a customer reported an assault (without injury); in April 2001, a woman sought help in the Whataburger, reportin z, 220 S.W.3d 33, 40 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, pet. granted) (<HOLDING>), and Dickinson Arms-REO, L.P. v. Campbell, 4 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that carjacking and murder were foreseeable in light of 184 reported criminal incidents on premises during previous three years (B) holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with (C) holding sentence of thirtyfive years in prison with ten years probation for seconddegree murder is within the statutory maximum under 1997 statutes (D) holding that murder at shopping mall was foreseeable because plaintiff produced evidence of ten violent crimes at mall in previous two years (E) holding that sexual assault was not foreseeable because plaintiff produced no evidence of similar criminal acts on or near defendants premises
Output (English): holding that sexual assault was not foreseeable because plaintiff produced no evidence of similar criminal acts on or near defendants premises