Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): error. In Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001), the Supreme Court held that the determination whether two crimes are functionally “ ‘consolidated for sentencing,’ and hence ‘related,’ ” id. at 61, 121 S.Ct. 1276, should be reviewed deferentially because the determination is “bounded by[ ] case-specific detailed factual circumstances,” id. at 65, 121 S.Ct. 1276. We have similarly held that “[w]e review a district court’s finding as to whether prior convictions are factually related for clear error.” United States v. Mapp, 170 F.3d 328, 338 & n. 15 (2d Cir.1999); see United States v. Patasnik, 89 F.3d 63, 74 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133, 1143 (2d Cir.1995). But see United States v. Keller, 58 F.3d 884, 894 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lopez, 961 F.2d 384, 386 (2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law subject to de novo review (B) holding prior to having been superseded by mapp that the determination of factual relatedness is subject to de novo review (C) holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review (D) recognizing de novo standard of review (E) recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review
Output (English): holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review