Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): regarding lack of consent of the owner, there was no evidence as to who was authorized to give consent to use the vehicle because the identity of the owner was never conclusively established, as there was no connection established between the car appellant was driving and the car that was stolen from Ms. Hautala. The government argues that lack of consent may be established by circumstantial evidence, and contends that appellant’s flight, the testimony of Ms. Hautala, the broken window and the different VINs on the car and registration card provided ample circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer that the car belonged to someone else and that appellant did not have permission to operate it. See Powell v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 258, 418 F.2d 470, 474 (1969) (<HOLDING>). While the government is correct that lack of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that lack of consent may be established by adequate circumstantial evidence (B) holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent (C) holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination (D) holding that conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence (E) holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence
Output (English): holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent