Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): substance seized from the package and the statement she made following her arrest. The district court denied the suppression motion. Subsequently, Hernandez entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving hér right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. Hernandez timely filed a notice of appeal. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. II To determine whether the district court properly concluded that the detention of the mailed package did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we must first identify the nature of the interest an addressee has in a package- delivered to postal authorities. It has long been established that an addressee has both a possessory and a privacy interest in a mailed package. See Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 732, 24 L.Ed. 877 (1877) (<HOLDING>); Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 654, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sealed packages in the mail can not be opened without a warrant (B) holding that there can be no plea agreement without a meeting of the minds (C) holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within (D) holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant (E) holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
Output (English): holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant