Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the deceased or another would result?” 4 . Tucker, 115 F.3d at 282; Lackey, 28 F.3d at 489; James v. Collins, 987 F.2d 1116, 1121 (5th Cir.1993); Cordova v. Collins, 953 F.2d at 170. 5 . The second special issue reads: "Is there a probability that the defendant will commit criminal acts of violence that will constitute a continuing threat to society?” 6 . The third special issue poses the question: "Was the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any by the deceased?” 7 . See Evans v. State, 601 S.W.2d 943, 946 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Brown v. State, 554 S.W.2d 677, 678-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). 8 . See Washington, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Mann v. Scott, 41 F.3d 968, 983-84 (5th Cir.1994). 9 . See Duhamel, 955 F.2d at 966 (<HOLDING>). 10 . See, e.g., Ransom v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice (B) recognizing that the burden of persuasion for a showing of prejudice was on the defendant (C) holding that the omission of evidence that the defendant was moderately mentally retarded with an iq of 56 did not result in prejudice (D) holding that miscitation or omission of a statutory provision is not a basis for reversal unless the defendant demonstrates prejudice (E) holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause
Output (English): holding that miscitation or omission of a statutory provision is not a basis for reversal unless the defendant demonstrates prejudice