Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): remuneration — whether monetary or otherwise — from defendant for their children’s Social Security information. Generally, as part of those transactions, defendant paid $100 per child in exchange for that information and the mothers’ agreement to allow other individuals to claim their children as dependents for purposes of the 1996 federal tax year. Also in 1997, defendant informed Irabahima Bane, Alioune Camara, Baba Deme, Seydina Ba, Amandou Anne, and Mammadou Seek, African immigrants living in defendant’s neighborhood, that they could receive tax refunds by listing children as “foster children” on their federal income tax returns. Defendant also informed Jade Woodall, an American-born citizen, of this tax advantage. At a rate of approximately $200 per child, defendan (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Odom, 199 F.3d 321, 323 (6th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination concerning the amount of loss for which the defendant is to be held accountable as relevant conduct under   1b13a1 (B) holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings (C) holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of a defendants role in an offense for purposes of applying ussg  3b11a (D) holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of the conduct in which defendant engaged but that we review de novo the district courts determination of whether that conduct constitutes relevant conduct for purposes of ussg  1b13a2 (E) holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination as to whether prior cases were consolidated for sentencing under ussg  4a12a2 and that we give the court due deference in its application of the guidelines to that determination
Output (English): holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings