Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 244 (2d Cir.2006) (remanding where district court made “anomalous and incomplete” factfindings); United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 337 (2d Cir.1992) (remanding where record did not allow the panel to determine whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car being searched); United States v. Gorski, 852 F.2d 692, 696 (2d Cir.1988) (remanding where there was no evidence that it was inevitable that an inventory search would be conducted). 5 . See United States v. Matsushita, 794 F.2d 46, 49 (2d Cir.1986) (remanding where it was unclear whether the district court's probable cause finding referred to the initial seizure or the defendant's eventual arrest at the police station). 6 . See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 742-44, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a telephone companys white pages lack the requisite originality for copyright protection where the telephone company merely published basic subscriber information  name town and telephone number  and arranged it alphabetically based on surnames (B) holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed (C) holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth (D) holding that a customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers which were conveyed to the telephone company (E) holding that telephone users have no expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers because they voluntarily expose such information to the service provider
Output (English): holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed