Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that the criminal is no longer fit to live upon the earth, but is to be exterminated as a monster and a bane to human society, the law sets a note of infamy upon him, puts him out of it’s [sic] protection, and takes no farther care of him than barely to see him executed. He is then called attaint, attincbus, stained, or blackened. He is no longer of any credit or reputation. ...” SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 154 F.3d 226, 235 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *380). While the prohibition against bills of attainder has evolved far beyond the original context of capital sentences, it continues to focus on legislative enactments that “set[ ] a note of infamy” on the persons to whom the statute applies. See Brown, 381 U.S. at 453-54, 85 S.Ct. at 1717-18 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Viewed in this light, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is not (B) holding that bill of review is exclusive remedy on direct attack where court had jurisdictional power even if judgment void (C) holding that a statute is not a bill of attainder where it incorporates no judgment censuring or condemning any man or group of men (D) holding that demand upon a bill already paid or unauthorized demand upon unpaid bill constitutes a false claim even though bill itself contains no false statement (E) holding that the meritorious defense requirement in a bill of review proceeding violates due process where the bill of review plaintiff has no notice of the proceeding in which the default judgment was rendered
Output (English): holding that the meritorious defense requirement in a bill of review proceeding violates due process where the bill of review plaintiff has no notice of the proceeding in which the default judgment was rendered