Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): brought against him in a state court “for any act under color of such office.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The second, by contrast, authorizes “any employee of the [federal] Government” to remove any “civil action or proceeding for money damages” brought against him in a state court for injury to person or property resulting ficom his negligent or wrongful conduct, upon a finding, either administrative or judicial, that he was “acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2); see id. § 2679(b)(1). As Wiley points out, he was entitled to have this action remain in federal court if removal jurisdiction existed under either of these two alternative provisions. See Mitchell, 896 F.2d at 131-32 n. 3 (<HOLDING>); Nadler v. Mann, 951 F.2d 301, 306 n. 9 (11th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand (C) holding that the federal officer removal statute is not narrow or limited  (D) holding that removal proceedings are in the nature of process and defects in the removal procedures are waivable (E) recognizing that  1442a1 provides federal officer named as defendant in a state tort action with a right of removal separate and apart from that provided by the removal provision in the westfall act
Output (English): holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct