Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): not offer evidence that the defendant possessed commonly available materials—such as tape—if the defendant otherwise possesses all of the key components necessary to assemble a destructive device. See United States v. Simmons, 83 F.3d 686, 687 (4th Cir. 1996) (observing that possession of a'method of ignition, such as a match, is not typically required to find that the defendant possessed the components necessary to assemble a Molotov cocktail); United States v. Crocker, 260 Fed.Appx. 794, 797 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Although the government did not introduce evidence that the defendant possessed tape, this Court does not require showing possession of all commonly available materials when'determining whether- a destructive device could have been readily assembled.”); Langan, 263 F.3d at 626 (<HOLDING>). As Sheehan could be convicted of possessing a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding at summary judgment that the plaintiff had to show a reasonable jury could find the defendants allegedly anticompetitive conduct was a material cause of plaintiffs injury (B) holding that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the defendants acted with malice (C) holding that the defendant could not be convicted for possessing a combination of parts that could be readily assembled into a bomb where the defendant did not possess any explosive material a key element required for the creation of a bomb (D) holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff (E) holding that a reasonable jury could find the device to be readily convertible into an explosive bomb where wires could be quickly stripped and recrimped to a pager that was part of the detonating mechanism
Output (English): holding at summary judgment that the plaintiff had to show a reasonable jury could find the defendants allegedly anticompetitive conduct was a material cause of plaintiffs injury