Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): his jury waiver. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. WHITE, J. joins with note: I join the opinion of the Court. However, I also agree with the reasoning in J. MEYERS’ concurring opinion. 1 . The Court of Appeals originally overruled appellant’s points of error on the ground that they were not preserved for review. Marquez v. State, No. 03-93-458-CR (Tex.App.—Austin Feb. 2, 1994) (unpublished opinion). On petition for discretionary review, this Court held that the points were properly preserved and remanded the cause for further proceedings. Marquez v. State, No. 266-94 (Tex.Crim.App. May 18, 1994) (unpublished opinion). 2 . The Sixth Circuit seems to reach a similar conclusion with regard to federal constitutional law. Sinistaj v. Burt, 66 F.3d 804 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, although the case has apparently 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences (B) recognizing the right to waive a jury trial (C) holding with or without a local rule so requiring failure to file motion to withdraw the reference when jury demanded was a waiver of right to jury trial (D) holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury (E) holding that a trial courts refusal to withdraw a jury waiver ordinarily does not implicate the federal constitutional right to a jury trial
Output (English): holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences