Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): calculated by summing Keszen-heimer’s regular monthly salary and a 24-month average of both his offshore per diem and the taxable automobile allowance. 5 . Facility Ins. Corp. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 357 F.3d 508, 512 (5th Cir.2004). 6 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). 7 . Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Ramming v. Nat'l Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 390 F.3d 366, 371 (5th Cir.2004). 8 . Wegner v. Standard Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 814, 818 (5th Cir.1997) (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989)). 9 . Id. 10 . Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 . Id. 12 . Id. (<HOLDING>). Because the plain meaning of the policy terms 
 Holding statements: (A) holding terms overtime or any other extra compensation to be unambiguous and assuming salary was also commonly understood (B) holding that the words amount and compensation in the regulation referred to cash or salary rather than to all forms of compensation (C) holding where terms are unambiguous any facts about the parties intent are immaterial (D) recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms (E) holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous
Output (English): recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms