Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 15:529.1. It is evident that the two twenty-four year sentences imposed on the defendant are legal and within the statutory range, thus, defendant’s assertion that his sentences exceed the maximum sentence allowed by law is meritless. However, we recognize that even a sentence which falls | Bwithin statutory limits may violate a defendant’s right against excessive punishment. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979). Defendant also contends, in essence, his sentences were excessive because they were not individualized with respect to him. Under La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, a trial court in sentencing a defendant must state for the record those circumstances taken into account as well as the factual basis for the sentence imposed. State v. MacDonald, 390 So.2d 1276 (La.1980 89) (<HOLDING>). The jurisprudence does, however, indicate 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary (B) holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary (C) holding that in california one may be convicted of burglary even if he enters with consent (D) holding that fifteen years for a second offender convicted of simple burglary was clearly not excessive (E) holding that the police have an automatic right to conduct a protective search of a burglary suspect because burglary is a crime for which an offender would likely be armed
Output (English): holding that the police have an automatic right to conduct a protective search of a burglary suspect because burglary is a crime for which an offender would likely be armed