Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (7th Cir.2002). Counsel first considers whether Romero could argue that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Counsel, though, is unable to articulate any conceivable disagreement with the court’s ruling, and nor are we. A defendant convicted of committing a crime of violence or controlled substance offense qualifies as a career offender if he was at least 18 years old at the time and already had two or more felony convictions for such crimes. Id. § 4Bl.l(a); United States v. Rice, 520 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2008). Romero is 36, and his felony convictions for threatening to murder a magistrate judge and threatening to harm a corrections supervisor are crimes of violence, see United States v. Ladwig, 432 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a) (defining 
 Holding statements: (A) holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person (B) holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate (C) holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence (D) holding that theft from the person of another under wisconsin law is not a crime of violence as a matter of law and can only qualify as such if there are sufficient facts in the indictment to indicate that a serious threat of violence occurred (E) holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence
Output (English): holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person