Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): holding that “both the UCC and common law allow defendant to disclaim implied warranties”)). Defendants also argue that there is no privity of contract between the parties, and that Plaintiff failed to identify any affirmation of fact or promise that was the basis of the sale of the Infuse device (Dkt. 51 at 34-35). Again, Plaintiff fatally provides no opposition to Defendants’ arguments. See Notredan, L.L.C. v. Old Republic Exch. Facilitator Co., 531 Fed.Appx. 567 (6th Cir.2013) (recognizing that the plaintiff had waived claim by failing to respond to or refute arguments made by the defendants in the district court); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Global Med. Billing, Inc., 520 Fed.Appx. 409, 412 (6th Cir.2013) (same); Humphrey v. U.S. Att’y Gen.’s Office, 279 Fed.Appx. 328, 331 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Tenn., 878 F.2d 382 (6th Cir.1989) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court (B) holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument (C) holding that the defendant waived any argument on the issue by failing to oppose a motion to dismiss (D) holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal (E) holding litigant waived issue on appeal by failing to present any argument challenging the decision under review
Output (English): holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court