Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): U.S. 266, 277, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002)). 16 . 529 U.S. 266, 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000). 17 . Id. at 268, 120 S.Ct. 1375. 18 . Id. 19 . Id. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375. 20 . United States v. Martinez, 486 F.3d 855, 861 (5th Cir.2007). 21 . See id. 22 . United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir.1995). 23 . Id. 24 . See id. 25 . United States v. Waldrop, 404 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir.2005) (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). 26 . United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 158 (5th Cir.2005). 27 . United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263, 284 n. 91 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Puckett v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009)). 28 . Id. 29 . See De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d at 159 (<HOLDING>). 30 . See 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2). 31 . United 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the incriminating nature of a gun was apparent when officers were responding to charges that the defendants were holding aliens against their will (B) holding that trial court did not err (C) holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted (D) holding that the incriminating nature of an item was immediately apparent where the police officers had probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime (E) holding that a district court did not err in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure due to his status as an alien subject to removal
Output (English): holding that a district court did not err in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure due to his status as an alien subject to removal