Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): employed statistical method used in a variety of séttings — that randomly perturbed the lines of an initial districting plan to generate successive new plans. Id. at 13-15. The computer algorithm then eliminated from the 150,000 plan sample all “unreasonable” districting plans — plans with noncontiguous districts, plans with population deviations exceeding 0.1 percent, plans that were not reasonably compact under common statistical measures of compactness, plans that did not minimize the number of county and VTD splits, and plans that did not comply with the' Voting Rights Act — yielding the 24,518-plan ensemble. id. at 15-17. The criteria Dr. Mattingly used to eliminate “unreason able” plans from his sample reflect traditional redistricting criteria, see Harris, 136 S.Ct. at 1306 (<HOLDING>), and nearly all non-partisan criteria adopted 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10 falls within the category of minor deviations  from mathematical equality among state legislative districts that are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the fourteenth amendment notwithstanding that the plain language of the constitution references no such statistical threshold (B) holding that bail revocation serves to maintain  the integrity of the judicial process and the authority of the courts and protect  the public from potentially dangerous persons (C) holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 (D) holding that equitable considerations did not toll the statute of limitations under the tort claims act where plaintiffs conduct was not in strict compliance with congressional waiver of immunity (E) recognizing compactness contiguity maintaining integrity of political subdivisions and potentially compliance with the voting rights act as legitimate considerations for deviations from population equality in state redistricting plans
Output (English): holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16