Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): an adoption or belief in the statements and opinions contained within them. Janus Capital Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 148 n.12, 131 S.Ct. 2296, 180 L.Ed.2d 166 (2011) (reasoning that defendant was not subject to liability for securities fraud by providing link to fraudulent prospectus on its website since “[m]erely hosting a document on a [web site] does not indicate that the hosting entity adopts the document as its own statement or exercises.control over its content”), The fact, that a party links to or posts on its website material from another source, or otherwise hosts or references third-party documents on its website does not by itself constitute .a clear demonstration of intent to adopt. See Fenner v. Suthers, 194 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1149 (D. Colo. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Aikens v. Cty. of Ventura, No. B221992, 2011 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in the absence of public disclosure the court need not address whether relator was original source of the information (B) holding that due process was violated where a death sentence was imposed based on information in a presentence report and the defendant was not given an opportunity to deny or explain the information (C) holding proponent of a motion for continuance should state what specific discovery is material and show why it is material (D) holding that experts may rely on inadmissible material in forming the basis of opinions but inadmissible material may not be admitted for truth of the matter asserted (E) holding that material from websites was inadmissible because proponent failed to explain whether the source sponsors endorses collects or simply provides the information on the websites
Output (English): holding that experts may rely on inadmissible material in forming the basis of opinions but inadmissible material may not be admitted for truth of the matter asserted