Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): if erroneous at all. See generally United States v. Barry, 938 F.2d 1327, 1337-38 (D.C.Cir.1991). The district court recognized Suschanke was the one who “sought [the child pornography] out,” and Suschanke brought the offensive images into the home computer. Even if the abrogation of United States v. Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d 622, 629-30 (8th Cir.2006) (affirming a district court’s decision to consider rehabilitation when deciding whether to impose a lengthier sentence) is forthcoming, “nothing ... prohibits sentencing courts from considering rehabilitative needs for other reasons, such as in selecting a shorter term of imprisonment.” In re Sealed Case, 573 F.3d 844, 851 (D.C.Cir. 2009). See generally Pepper v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1241, 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011) (<HOLDING>). The district court merely stated, “I also 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that resentencing is required (B) holding that resentencing should consider all sentencing arguments and remanding for court to consider defendants argument for downward departure based on postconviction rehabilitation (C) holding that a district court is not to consider evidence of postconviction rehabilitation in deciding whether to resentence under crosby (D) holding district courts may consider rehabilitation when deciding whether to impose a more lenient sentence at a defendants resentencing (E) holding that when a defendants sentence has been set aside on appeal a trial court at resentencing may consider evidence of the defendants postsentencing rehabilitation
Output (English): holding that a district court is not to consider evidence of postconviction rehabilitation in deciding whether to resentence under crosby