Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Count I of the Indictment in Bradford II, a potential charge dismissed as part of a plea agreement in the case. Second, such conduct did not enter into the determination of the applicable guideline range. Arguably, § 2D 1.1 takes into account some of the pernicious effects of unlawful substances, because it is directed at the unlawful manufacturing, importing, exporting and trafficking of controlled substances. See USSG § 2D1.1, passim. Defendant’s distribution of heroin resulting in the death of J.H., however, clearly did not enter into the determination of the applicable range. As the court made clear in its discussion of Rebmann II, see supra Parts V(A)(2)(a) and (b), USSG § 2D1.1 contains a specific provision for death: USSG § 2Dl.l(a)(2). This provision was ina D.C.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). “Under [§ J2D1.1, the base offense level for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding section 107a17bs plain language does not require that the actor actually intend death or serious bodily injury an object is a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury (B) holding that it was a double jeopardy violation to convict and sentence for both dui with serious bodily injury and driving without a valid license with serious bodily injury based on an injury to a single victim (C) holding dui causing serious bodily injury is not a crime of violence under 18 usc  16 (D) holding that  2d11a2 applied because defendant pled guilty to a crime that contemplated death or serious bodily injury from the use of heroin (E) holding that specific intent is not element of assault resulting in serious bodily injury
Output (English): holding that it was a double jeopardy violation to convict and sentence for both dui with serious bodily injury and driving without a valid license with serious bodily injury based on an injury to a single victim