Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): under this section occurs during a single criminal episode, it shall be considered a single offense.” Hence, the amendment provides that a first-time offender who commi ppears to be misleading because it could be read to mean that legislative implementation would be required before the amendment would become effective. The amendment itself, however, actually provides for the amendment’s effective date in subsection (f). Only in subsection (g) are voters made aware that the Legislature is involved with this amendment because it “shall enact such laws as necessary to implement this section.” Thus, the term “legislative implementation” does not accurately describe the proposed amendment’s implementation as set forth in the amendment’s text. See Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d at 1841 (<HOLDING>). Third, the title and summary are also 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the summary was too misleading because the phrase to help to pay gave readers the impression that entities other than the sugarcane industry would be sharing in the expense of cleanup but the amendments text called for the levying of a fee on sugarcane processors exclusively (B) holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase (C) holding that if presented with this situation as a matter of first impression the court would not extend the doctrine where the new lender is not a guarantor because in that case the earmarking doctrine does not help either the new creditor nor the debtor (D) holding that virginias statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry (E) holding that the defendants could not be held in contempt for failure to pay more than the fee cap amount because the court cannot order the djefendants to violate an act of congress to pay the total award
Output (English): holding that if presented with this situation as a matter of first impression the court would not extend the doctrine where the new lender is not a guarantor because in that case the earmarking doctrine does not help either the new creditor nor the debtor