Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 599 (1976) (stating that School Board would be entitled to release from decree upon district court making factual finding of compliance); Florida Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, 246 F.3d at 1299 (“[I]f the defendants take the position that the consent, decree in this case is no longer justified, they should make an appropriate motion to the .district court on remand to have the decree either modified or terminated.”); United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1505-07 (11th Cir.1993) (explaining that decision to terminate class action employment discrimination decree should address both compliance intended to remedy consequences of past discrimination and whether objective of eliminating illegal discrimination has been met); Youngblood v. Dalzell, 925 F.2d 954, 961 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Vazquez v. Carver, 18 F.Supp.2d 503, 507 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to make repeated objections is not ineffective when such objections would not have been sustained (B) holding that district court could not dissolve decree without considering objections to dissolution (C) holding that when defendants only timely filed objections to expert report were that two statements were speculative defendant waived all other objections (D) holding that a party waived its objections on appeal to an affidavit presented in support of a motion for summary judgment by failing to raise its objections to the trial court (E) holding that because generic objections do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error
Output (English): holding that because generic objections do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error