Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and murdered Special Agent Watson. (Doc. 15.) Defendant—similar to the defendant in Mohammad-Omar—had ample reason to anticipate being into a court for allegedly committing a criminal offense. The extradition treaty between the United States and Colombia specifically permits the extradition of Colombian nationals to the United States for prosecution for kidnapping and murder. See Extradition Treaty with the Republic of Colombia, U.S.-Colom., Sept. 14, 1979, S. Treaty Doa No. 97-8 (1981). Both the Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit have construed treaties as providing notice that “certain generally condemned acts are subject to prosecution by any party to the treaty.” United States v. Ali, 718 F.3d 929, 944 (D.C.Cir.2013) (citing United States v. Shi, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir.2008)) (<HOLDING>). The Court similarly construes this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states (B) holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties (C) holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process (D) holding that despite plaintiffs allegations of a conspiracy they did not suggest that any of the acts committed by individual defendants occurred in the united states (E) recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states
Output (English): holding that despite plaintiffs allegations of a conspiracy they did not suggest that any of the acts committed by individual defendants occurred in the united states