Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in every case. We do understand, however, that the government was faced with a difficult situation: a district judge who is not willing to follow the sentencing guidelines, but a defendant who was guilty of a serious and despicable offense and deserves a lengthy term of imprisonment. The judgment of sentence is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings before a different district judge, in accordance with this opinion. 1 . All references to the United States Sentencing Guidelines are to the 2000 version, which were the guidelines in effect when Andrews's criminal conduct took place. 2 . United States v. Milton, 147 F.3d 414, 421 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting Burns, 501 U.S. at 137, 111 S.Ct. 2182). 3 . See, e.g., United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1341 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The court noted its belief that Andrews 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court violated fedrcrimp 32 by departing upward in sentence without notice and the psr identified no grounds for departure (B) holding that intention to consider an upward departure transmitted with six days notice in advance of sentencing by fax was sufficient (C) holding that district courts error was not harmless because the court relied on an improper factor in imposing an upward departure (D) holding that uncharged conduct described in psr and which was discussed by the court at sentencing was sufficient to support an upward departure under  5k221 (E) holding that the requisite notice must specifically identify the ground on which the district court is contemplating an upward departure
Output (English): holding that the district court violated fedrcrimp 32 by departing upward in sentence without notice and the psr identified no grounds for departure