Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ” Larson v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 869 (D.C.Cir.2009) (quoting Meeropol v. Meese, 252 U.S.App. D.C. 381, 790 F.2d 942, 956 (D.C.Cir.1986) (emphasis added)). The CIA was “not obliged to look beyond the four corners of the request for leads to the location of responsive documents.” Kowalczyk v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 73 F.3d 386, 389 (D.C.Cir.1996); but cf. Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 28 (D.C.Cir.1998) (requiring that an agency expand the scope of its search if during the search the agency discovers information suggesting the existence of documents elsewhere). The CIA’s failure, moreover, to produce a particular document does not necessarily undermine the adequacy of a search. Lasko v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 2010 WL 3521595, at *1 (D.C.Cir. Sept. 3, 2010) (<HOLDING>). Here, the CIA construed the plaintiffs 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the agency did not have an obligation to search for and produce the documents the plaintiff claimed entitlement to because the plaintiffs foia request gave no indication that she sought those particular documents (B) holding that the failure to produce particular documents does not undermine the adequacy of a search citing wilbur v cent intelligence agency 355 f3d 675 678 dccir2004 (C) holding that an agency may only tier to documents subject to nepa review and citing cases (D) holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver (E) holding that it was fanciful to think that the court had revised its jurisprudence that the failure of a cause of action does not automatically produce a failure of jurisdiction
Output (English): holding that it was fanciful to think that the court had revised its jurisprudence that the failure of a cause of action does not automatically produce a failure of jurisdiction