Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the denial of a gift or gratuity if the states refused to waive their sovereign immunity. See id. Instead, in both Parden and College Savings Bank, Congress threatened a sanction: “exclusion of the State from otherwise permissible activity.” Id. Specifically, the federal statute in Parden required Alabama to waive its immunity or give up its ability to own and operate .a railroad in interstate commerce. In College Savings Bank, the TRCA required Florida to waive its immunity or give up its ability to engage in the business of advertising and selling a for-profit educational investment vehicle. The voluntariness of a waiver is destroyed “when what is attached to the refusal to waive is the exclusion of the State from otherwise lawful activity.” Id.; see also Innes, 184 F.3d at 1284 (<HOLDING>). 3. Application of College Savings Bank 47 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court (B) holding that state waived its eleventh amendment immunity by filing proofs of claim in bankruptcy proceedings (C) holding that a plaintiff waived an argument that the defendant voluntarily waived its eleventh amendment immunity by removing the case from state to federal court by failing to raise it before the district court even though an intervening supreme court decision clarified the law in the plaintiffs favor (D) holding that a state university knowingly and voluntarily waived the states immunity by agreeing as a prerequisite to its participation in the perkins loan program to undertake certain enumerated actions in federal bankruptcy court in the event of a claim for discharge filed by the studentborrower (E) holding that when state voluntarily submits a claim in a bankruptcy proceeding the state waives its sovereign immunity
Output (English): holding that a plaintiff waived an argument that the defendant voluntarily waived its eleventh amendment immunity by removing the case from state to federal court by failing to raise it before the district court even though an intervening supreme court decision clarified the law in the plaintiffs favor