Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that is not compensable under the IDEA. Defs.’ Opp’n at 15. They therefore contend that the total 7.93 hours billed for administrative work should be disallowed from the plaintiffs fee petition, reducing the overall attorney’s fees total by $1,204.94. Id. at 16. The plaintiff counters that these tasks were necessary, de minimis clerical functions that cannot be separated from clearly billable work. PL’s Mot. at 9-10. Pure clerical tasks are not reimbursable in an award of attorney’s fees. See Role Models, 353 F.3d at 973 (“purely clerical or secretarial tasks are not reimbursable at either attorney or paralegal rates”) (quoting Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989)); Michigan v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 254 F.3d 1087, 1095-96 (D.C.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, certain de minimis clerical 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a mill and gin could be considered part of an exempt homestead if they were part of the exempt realty (B) holding that purely clerical tasks are not reimbursable because they ought to be considered part of normal administrative overhead (C) recognizing that the possibility that pennsylvania district attorneys could be considered state actors to the extent that they are enforcing state law and performing other purely prosecutorial duties (D) recognizing that docket entries form no part of the record that may be considered on appeal because they are inherently unreliable (E) holding that consequential damages are not to be considered
Output (English): holding that a mill and gin could be considered part of an exempt homestead if they were part of the exempt realty