Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): argument that the predicate acts of racketeering were unrelated, and emphasizing that “the named Defendants were all deputies of the Robeson County Sheriffs Office” and that the “connection between the criminal conduct of the Defendants [was] their abuse of power to further criminal activity”). The court also concludes that the allegations in the first indictment are sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement. As previously noted, to establish a pattern of racketeering activity, “it must also be shown that the predicates themselves amount to, or that they otherwise constitute a threat of, continuing racketeering activity.” H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 240, 109 S.Ct. 2893 (emphasis in original). The continuity requirement is “both a closed- and open-ended co d 688, 690 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the nature of the alleged 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement since it alleged that the defendants conduct occurred over a period of eight years (B) holding that the defendants predicate acts of racketeering that occurred over a tenyear period met the requirements of continuity notwithstanding the closedended nature of the acts (C) holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period (D) holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred (E) holding that an individual could recover for acts occurring outside the statutory time period if at least one act occurred within the time period and the acts were part of the same hostile work environment
Output (English): holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period