Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293, 296-97, 73 S.Ct. 299, 97 L.Ed. 333 (1953), the Court extended this constitutional guarantee to governmental entities. We assessed the constitutional adequacy of the official notice provided in bankruptcy proceedings in Matter of Gregory, 705 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir.1983). There, a creditor argued that its claim in bankruptcy should not be discharged because it had received inadequate notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy plan. Id. at 112 the Board had doubts about the tax estimate, it could have either requested an extension of time in which to file a claim, or filed an estimated claim in any amount, and then sought an amendment of that claim prior to the distribution. See, e.g., Lompa v. Price (In re Price), 871 F.2d 97, 99 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Yet the Board does not explain why it did not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a creditor who had received actual notice of a bankruptcy proceeding through his counsel did not suffer a due process violation because he had notice in time to file a complaint or at least to file a timely motion for an extension of time (B) holding 57 days notice before deadline to file a complaint under  523 was sufficient notice when creditor had actual notice of filing (C) holding that the operative fact is whether or not the creditor has notice of the debtors bankruptcy proceeding in time to file a timely proof of claim (D) holding that the plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file appeal qualified as a notice of appeal because it met the requirements of rule 4 of the federal rules of appellate procedure (E) holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted
Output (English): holding that the plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file appeal qualified as a notice of appeal because it met the requirements of rule 4 of the federal rules of appellate procedure