Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 504 U.S. 655, 659-60, 112 S.Ct. 2188, 119 L.Ed.2d 441 (1992) (recognizing the continuing authority of Rauscher)). 47 . Id. at 1244. (Emphasis added) (citing Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 622 (4 th Cir. 1998) (Butzner, J. concurring) (stating, that "[t]he provisions of the Conventions should be implemented before trial when they can be appropriately addressed.”)). 48 . Id. (citing Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d at 622 (Butzner, J. concurring)). 49 . See State’s Let. of June 23, 1999, at 6. 50 . See Vienna Convention, supra note 10, art. 38, para. 1(c). 51 . See State’s Let. of June 23, 1999, at 2. 52 . See State’s Let. of June 23, 1999, at 6-7. 53 . See Kadish, supra note 10, at 605 (referring to Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 377, 91 S.Ct. 1848; 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971) (<HOLDING>)). 54 . See Aceves, supra note 5, at 314-315 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution (B) holding that central assessment by the unit method of valuation did not violate the equal protection clause of the united states constitution or the uniform operation of laws provision in the utah constitution (C) holding that state outdoor recreational immunity statute did not violate equal protection clause of united states constitution under rationalbasis test (D) holding that aliens constitute a specific minority deserving enhanced judicial protection and making alienage a suspect classification under the equal protection clause of the united states constitution (E) holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause
Output (English): holding that central assessment by the unit method of valuation did not violate the equal protection clause of the united states constitution or the uniform operation of laws provision in the utah constitution