Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Common sense casts significant doubt on Robinson’s causation allegations. Standard Mortgage repeatedly notified Robinson that her insurance coverage had' lapsed and that, if she failed to take corrective action, it would become “necessary for us to secure coverage at your expense.” Standard Mortgage’s letters did not mislead Robinson about how much she would be charged for force-placed insurance coverage; they plainly stated that “[t]he premium will be $8,845.20.” Nor did the letters attempt to “lull” Robinson into inaction by suggesting, for example, that Robinson would be unable to obtain cheaper coverage on the insurance market. Cf. Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 960 F.2d 439, 445 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). To the contrary, Standard Mortgages’s letters 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action (B) holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer (C) holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction (D) holding that the nlra preempts a rico claim when the underlying conduct of the plaintiffs rico claim is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws  (E) recognizing that publications if used to lull plaintiff into not resisting the efforts to fire him could be part of the fraud underlying the rico offense
Output (English): holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action