Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for separate crimes occurring on different days, involving different victims, to different terms of imprisonment. Therefore, we conclude that the sentences were not “consolidated” under the Sentencing Guidelines. III. As the evidence on the record strongly indicates that the cases are not related for the purposes of section 4A1.2, we must reluctantly conclude that the Defendant is properly characterized as a “career offender” under section 4B1.1 of the Guidelines. DONE AND ORDERED. 1 . We note that the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, overturned a separate holding in Jones that bank tellers are particularly susceptible to offenses of larceny and thus are vulnerable victims under section 3A1.1 of the Guidelines. United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir.1993) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The portions that we are concerned with in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent (B) holding that bank tellers as a class are not vulnerable victims under  3a11 (C) holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa (D) holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification (E) recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members
Output (English): holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa