Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): sold these individuals various children’s Social Security information. Defendant instructed the taxpayers which particular tax return preparer to use— typically, Wanda Marion at the Memphis Currency Exchange — , and often transported them to that location and waited while the returns were being processed and filed. Each taxpayer’s individual return listed the false dependent as a “foster child” so as to entitle the taxpayer to head-of-household filing status, a dependency exemption, and earned income credit. As the mothers testified, none of the taxpayers who claimed a child as a foster child on his federal we review for clear error a district court’s application of an obstruetion-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1); United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 363, 375 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Orlando, 363 F.3d 596, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo (B) holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination as to whether prior cases were consolidated for sentencing under ussg  4a12a2 and that we give the court due deference in its application of the guidelines to that determination (C) holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination concerning the amount of loss for which the defendant is to be held accountable as relevant conduct under   1b13a1 (D) holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of the conduct in which defendant engaged but that we review de novo the district courts determination of whether that conduct constitutes relevant conduct for purposes of ussg  1b13a2 (E) holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of a defendants role in an offense for purposes of applying ussg  3b11a
Output (English): holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo