Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): file, unless the letter writer has requested that the letter not be made public or when the licensee feels that it should be excluded from the public inspection file because of the nature of fis content, such as a defamatory or obscene letter. 9 . See, eg., Chevalier v. Animal Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 839 F.Supp. 1224, 1234 (N.D.Tex.1993) (plaintiff appeared on television, gave interviews to magazines, and "apparently tried to orchestrate a counter-letter-writing campaign"); Samuels v. Berger, 191 A.D.2d 627, 595 N.Y.S.2d 231, 233 (N.Y.App.Div.1993) (plaintiff took out newspaper advertisements, purchased advertising time on local radio, spoke at public hearings, and wrote letter to editor). 10 . See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See Bell v. Nat'l Republican Cong. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that lawyer who attended coroners inquest and filed action for damages did not engage the publics attention because he never discussed either the criminal or civil litigation with the press and was never quoted as having done so (B) recognizing that a broad definition of stolen is consistent with the guidelines purposes and finding that the enhancement was properly applied where a defendant found a gun that was lost or mislaid by its owner who never authorized anyone to take the gun never sold it and never gave it away as a gift (C) holding the assignment invalid because the assignee never used the mark and never acquired any of the assignors tangible assets or goodwill (D) holding that plaintiff did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile work environment where the complained of conduct was episodic but not so frequent as to become pervasive was never severe was never physically threatening though occasionally discomforting or mildly humiliating and significantly was never according to the record an impediment to the plaintiffs work performance (E) holding that employee did not invoke grievance procedure where he never mentioned the word grievance to the union and where he never asked the union to take any action on his behalf
Output (English): holding the assignment invalid because the assignee never used the mark and never acquired any of the assignors tangible assets or goodwill