Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): with Mr. Shuck and did not grow or use marijuana. You asked him if he uses marijuana and they asked him if he uses marijuana, and he denied he ever distributed marijuana. I am allowing this testimony [i.e., of Ms. Armbruster]. Id. at 492-93. In other words, the district court expressly admitted Ms. Armbruster’s testimony regarding purchasing marijuana from Mr. Watson, and using it with him, during a period earlier than the charged crimes to impeach Mr. Watson's testimony that he never used or distributed marijuana. 19 . This is not to say that rebuttal-witness testimony is categorically only admissible as impeachment evidence (as opposed to substantive evidence). Indeed, in certain circumstances, rebuttal evidence can constitute substantive evidence. See Harris, 557 F.3d at 942-43 (<HOLDING>). However, in this case, the challenged 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination (B) holding that an ij need not first identify the particular pieces of missing relevant evidence and show that this evidence was reasonably available to the applicant when he or she is not otherwise credible (C) holding that admission of one defendants deposition was proper where she was present at the deposition even though she was represented at the time by the same counsel as her codefendants (D) holding that the challenged evidence the government introduced in rebuttal was substantive evidence and not  relevant for impeachment purposes because it was not offered to show that the witness was not a credible person but to show that she was not at the defendants home during the relevant time making her testimony that she did not see any drugrelated activity while at the defendants home irrelevant (E) holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired
Output (English): holding that admission of one defendants deposition was proper where she was present at the deposition even though she was represented at the time by the same counsel as her codefendants