Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): In United States v. Hernandez-Garcia, 442 Fed.Appx. 136, 137 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), the district court found the defendant had not given truthful testimony at the sentencing hearing and had, therefore, obstructed justice. As a result, he was not entitled to a reduction of his sentence for acceptance of responsibility. We agreed, reasoning that “[b]ecause Hernandez did not accept responsibility under the Guidelines, the condition triggering the Government’s obligation not to oppose Hernandez’ request for an adjustment was not fulfilled; the Government was, therefore, not in breach of the agreement by opposing his request for an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment.” Id. (emphasis omitted); cf. United States v. Bell, 417 Fed.Appx. 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). A contrary unpublished opinion, United States 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant was denied wrongfully his right to crossexamine on the issue of whether the device was designed as a pipe bomb or as a firecracker and that the jury may have found reasonable doubt if that right was not denied (B) holding that under  111 the defendants knowledge of the official status of the victim is generally irrelevant (C) holding that where the proffered hearsay statement of the victim pertained to a memory of the previous days events and was offered solely for the purpose of proving such events such statement was not admissible under rule 8033 (D) holding the same where the defendant offered exculpatory and irrelevant interpretations of transactions and events deflected responsibility denied or discounted relevant conduct portrayed himself as a victim of unfair government treatment and generally denied or minimized his culpability at the sentencing hearing (E) holding that where the defendant pleaded guilty subsequently denied his guilt and attempted to withdraw his plea and then attempted to minimize the significance of his statements at sentencing by averring that he accepted responsibility for the amount that me and the government have agreed to and offering a statement accepting responsibility  were insufficient to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility
Output (English): holding that the defendant was denied wrongfully his right to crossexamine on the issue of whether the device was designed as a pipe bomb or as a firecracker and that the jury may have found reasonable doubt if that right was not denied