Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for kidnapping, and to a concurrent twenty-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault into which it merged the remaining convictions. During the course of trial on Indictment I, defendant was arrested at the courthouse for the Lakewood rape on charges that would form the basis of Ocean County Indictment Number 90-04-0519 (Indictment II). He was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and two counts of criminal sexual contact on Indictment II in 1993 and sentenced to another discretionary extended term of life imprisonment with a twenty-five-year period of parole ineligibility on the kidnapping count consecutive to the sentence he was then serving arising out of Indictment I. In 2011, following our decision in State v. Pennington, 418 N.J.Super. 548, 557-58, 14 A.3d 790 (App.Div.2011) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 209 N.J. 595 (2012), 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that minnesota stay of imposition is sentence for purposes of federal sentencing guidelines even if no term of probation was imposed (B) holding that an additional term did not materially alter the contract because the plaintiff cannot profess to be surprised by an additional term in an invoice when the price quotation contained the identical term (C) holding that district judge was laboring under the misapprehension that in his words a term of supervised release can be reduced but cant be extended thats wrong it can be extended (D) holding that a second extended term cannot be imposed on an offense occurring before the imposition of the first extended term under njsa 2c445b1 (E) holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract
Output (English): holding that an additional term did not materially alter the contract because the plaintiff cannot profess to be surprised by an additional term in an invoice when the price quotation contained the identical term