Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): all investigative techniques used with respect to every individual that might be part of the drug trafficking organization under investigation); Edwards VI, 994 F.Supp.2d at 3-6, 2013 WL 5587256, at *2-3. The Court fully addressed Defendant’s arguments that his name should have been included under subsection (b) and/or (c) in prior opinions and the Court sees no reason to revisit those rulings. Accordingly, under either theory of the scope of subsection (e), as Defendant Edwards’ was not “specified in the applications ],” a clear prerequisite of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(e) disclosure, the Government had no obligation under subsection (e) to provide “a full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications” of Defendant Edwards. See Edwards V, 943 F.Supp.2d at *128 (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants other arguments (B) holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant (C) holding that since the government satisfied the disclosure requirements of subsection c without referencing defendant edwards name the court need not address the defendants arguments regarding subsection e (D) holding that in the absence of public disclosure the court need not address whether relator was original source of the information (E) holding where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants remaining arguments
Output (English): holding that in the absence of public disclosure the court need not address whether relator was original source of the information