Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): amounts in the budget process that were insufficient to fund payments due local governments as stated in the Act. This failure to request sufficient funds was a breach of the alleged implied contract, plaintiff believes, citing the General Accounting Office on the issue of statutory formulae: ‘Where allocation of funds is based on a statutory formula, the formula itself establishes the obligation to each recipient and the obligation occurs by operation of law.” GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (“GAO Redbook”) at 7-34. Greenlee also points to eases in which the full appropriation for a government obligation was not available, yet the obligation itself remained. The plaintiff had recourse to the courts for the difference. See, e.g., New York Airways, 369 F.2d at 748 (<HOLDING>). The elements of an implied-in-fact contract 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the 2005 amendment was a substantive change (B) recognizing that four reasons for granting a rule 59e motion are manifest errors of law or fact newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence manifest injustice and an intervening change in controlling law (C) holding that change in state substantive case law does not constitute the removal of an impediment (D) holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances (E) holding that congress had the power to amend an obligation but any intent to change substantive law in a subsequent appropriation must be clearly manifest
Output (English): holding that the 2005 amendment was a substantive change