Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): quotation marks and citation omitted)). Although the issue was squarely before the court, the district court made no factual finding one way or the other as to whether the parents intended to abandon their habitual residence in the United States in favor of Singapore, or whether they intended to retain their habitual residence while simply residing temporarily in Singapore. As a result, the district court seems to have overlooked an important factor in the habitual-residence analysis. Cf. Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir.2005) (finding that parents did not intend to abandon the family’s habitual residence in favor of Israel where the parents only agreed to move to Israel temporarily for a one-year conditional period); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1018-19 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The father, in an effort to persuade us that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that service of process by international registered mail from germany to the united states satisfied the hague convention and constitutional due process (B) holding that the right to associate with others as a military company is not a privilege of citizens of the united states (C) holding that the parties lacked shared intent to abandon their habitual residence in the united states where the family moved to germany for the fathers temporary fouryear military assignment (D) holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party (E) holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties
Output (English): holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party