Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): U.S., $147,900.00, 450 Fed.Appx. 261, 264 (4th Cir.2011) (finding a link between the defendant property and drugs when the claimant had a history of being involved with illegal drugs, the currency seized was allegedly related to drug activities, the cash seized was a large sum, and the claimant had no reported income or work history); United States v. $58,422.00 in U.S. Currency, 154 Fed.Appx. 20, 21-22 (9th Cir.2005) (finding a substantial link when the defendant property (cash and jewelry) was in close proximity to drugs, the claimant’s income was less than his monthly bills, and the claimant had no other source of income with which to have acquired the defendant property); United States v. $21,408.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 4:10-cv-138, 2010 WL 4687876, at *4 (S.D.Ga. Nov. 10, 2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. $36,100.00 in U.S. Currency, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding invalid and of no effect provisions in a judgment purporting to retain jurisdiction in the trial court for six months over the issues of the amount of child support and maintenance  for the reason the respondent was currently unemployed  (B) holding that a complaint met the pleading requirements when it alleged that 36110 was found packaged an unusual manner the money was hidden in a traptype compartment in a van and there was a positive drug dog alert (C) holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant (D) holding that the rule g pleading standard was met when the cash amount seized was large 185000 the claimant had been unemployed for six months the cash was packaged in an unusual fashion the claimant attempted to avoid a search and gave a false statement to police and a drug dog alerted positively (E) holding no probable cause where naddispositive claimant gave false and evasive answers purchased ticket with cash the day of flight and had no luggage or identification
Output (English): holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant