Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 919 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir.1990) (same). 47 . Duncan v. Alabama, 881 F.2d 1013, 1017 (11th Cir.1989). 48 . See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). 49 . (1) "I want to see if my mom got me a lawyer yet. I don’t know, I ain’t got in contact with her yet.” (2) "Yes, sir, the reason I was wanting one here.” (3) "That is why I was wanting my lawyer. I want to see if my mom has a lawyer so I can have him with me." (4) "I was waiting on — I want my mom to get me a lawyer.” (5) “Another one.” 50 . (1) "Well, I’m acting as your attorney today.” (2) "Well, that’s why I’m representing you today."' 51 . "I went back and explained to you that you did have a lawyer appointed for you." 52 . See Cannady v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 752, 755 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Fleming, 837 F.2d at 947 (holding that a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding do you think i need a lawyer to be ambiguous (B) holding that a suspect made an acceptable request for counsel by stating i dont think i want to talk to you anymore without a lawyer (C) holding that the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel because his statement i wanna call my lawyer when read in context did not represent a request to terminate the interrogation until his counsel was present (D) holding that appellants statement i think i need a lawyer     is just as ambiguous as the statement made by the defendant in davis (E) holding that statement i think i should call my lawyer was an unequivocal request for counsel
Output (English): holding that appellants statement i think i need a lawyer     is just as ambiguous as the statement made by the defendant in davis