Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (2005). On September 13, 2006, the District Court held a resentencing hearing and imposed the same sentence as before. Section 1326(b)(2) increases the authorized prison sentence from a maximum of two years to a maximum of twenty years if the person’s deportation followed conviction for an aggravated felony. JimenezCohenete argues that, because his prior felony convictions increased the statutory maximum penalty for his reentry offense, those offenses should have been charged in the indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends that the Government’s failure to do so violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Put another way, Jimenez-Cohenete challenges the vitality of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>), in light of subsequent Supreme Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that facts regarding prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (B) holding that factors increasing a defendants sentence beyond the statutory maximum of the crime charged with the exception of prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (C) holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that any fact  that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt
Output (English): holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt