Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): on Fourth Amendment grounds. 2. Standing Conferred by the Statute The government further asserts that the defendants lack standing to challenge the subpoenas because “DOC was the target of the subpoena, not the defendants.” Gov’t’s Reply at 4. The government’s position finds direct support in the decisions of two circuit courts. In United States v. Moffett, 84 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 1996), the Tenth Circuit concluded. that a criminal defendant who was not the direct recipient of a subpoena issued pursuant to § 876 was not “in the zone of interest the statute is meant to protect” and thus had no standing to challenge the subpoena, id. at 1293. Citing Moffett, the Ninth Circuit subsequently came to the same conclusion. See United States v. Plunk, 153 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). These out-of-circuit authorities must be 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the government had not produced evidence that the defendant intended to influence an official proceeding because the evidence showed only that he intended to influence the state civil proceedings that he had brought against his insurance agency (B) holding the defendant does not possess statutory standing to attack the subpoena  because he has not demonstrated that he was within the zone of interests intended to be protected by  876a (C) holding that the plaintiff did not have standing because it was not able to demonstrate how its economic interests fell within the zone of interests protected by the nhpa (D) holding that as title vi is a remedial statute the zone of interests to be protected  must be construed broadly (E) holding that the plaintiffs did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the tcpa because they attempted to use the statute in a way not intended or contemplated by congress and because their damages are not of the vexatious and intrusive nuisance nature sought to be redressed by congress in enacting the tcpa
Output (English): holding that the government had not produced evidence that the defendant intended to influence an official proceeding because the evidence showed only that he intended to influence the state civil proceedings that he had brought against his insurance agency