Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 130 S.Ct. 1855; Smith, 130 S.Ct. 1382; Spisak, 130 S.Ct. 676; McDaniel, 130 S.Ct. 665; Knowles, 556 U.S. Ill, 129 S.Ct. 1411; Waddington, 555 U.S. 179, 129 S.Ct. 823; Wright, 552 U.S. 120, 128 S.Ct. 743; Uttecht, 551 U.S. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2218; Schriro, 550 U.S. 465, 127 S.Ct. 1933; Carey, 549 U.S. 70, 127 S.Ct. 649; Rice, 546 U.S. 333, 126 S.Ct. 969; Kane, 546 U.S. 9, 126 S.Ct. 407; Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 125 S.Ct. 1432; Holland, 542 U.S. 649, 124 S.Ct. 2736; Yarborough, 541 U.S. 652, 124 S.Ct. 2140; Middleton, 541 U.S. 433, 124 S.Ct. 1830; Mitchell, 540 U.S. 12, 124 S.Ct. 7; Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 124 S.Ct. 1; Lockyer, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166; Woodford, 537 U.S. 19, 123 S.Ct. 357; Early, 537 U.S. 3, 123 S.Ct. 362; Bell, 535 U.S. 685, 122 S.Ct. 1843. 3 . See Parker, 132 S.Ct. at 2155 (<HOLDING>); Coleman, 132 S.Ct. at 2062 (holding that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal circuit would henceforth apply its own law rather than regional circuit law to questions involving the relationship between patent law and other federal and state law rights (B) holding that the sixth circuit erred in finding that the state courts jury instructions were contrary to clearly established federal law (C) holding that where the supreme court has expressly left an open question circuit precedent is immaterial and there is no clearly established law for the state court to have unreasonably applied (D) holding that the sixth circuit erred by following its own precedent rather than that of the supreme court in determining what is clearly established federal law (E) holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts
Output (English): holding that the sixth circuit erred in finding that the state courts jury instructions were contrary to clearly established federal law