Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): express an intention different from its clear meaning.”). No Exclusion from SPMS in Business Regulation § 11-207 The administrative law judge based his opposite conclusion on several factors. First, he compared BR §§ 11-206 and 11-207. He concluded that the “staff’ authorized by § 11-206, who were expressly included in the SPMS, were to be contrasted with the “additional employees,” who were not so included. We must reject this reasoning. SPP § 6-302 does not require that executive branch state employees be specifically included in the SPMS. The presumption is that they are so included. Rather, it requires that employees not to be included in the SPMS be explicitly excluded from the system. Cf. State Admin. Bd. of Election Laws v. Billhimer, 72 Md.App. 578, 586-87, 531 A.2d 1298 (1987) (<HOLDING>), rev’d, on other grounds, 314 Md. 46, 548 A.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state (B) holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment (C) holding that under the old state employment merit system all employees of the state are deemed classified unless they have been specifically exempted form that category (D) holding that the statute plainly exempted  all employees who were covered by the flsa before january 1 2007 (E) holding that antecedent debts will not be deemed within a dragnet clause unless they are specifically identified in the instrument
Output (English): holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment