Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Sykes v. Tx. Air Corp., 834 F.2d 488, 492-93 (5th Cir.1987) (noting an “absolute bar” against reviewing district court’s decision to remand under § 1452, whether the reasons are equitable or based on a lack of bankruptcy jurisdiction). However, there are limited circumstances under which we may review a remand order. See In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 1523, 1528 (5th Cir.1991) (“[Wjhere an exception to non-reviewability exists, an appellate court has jurisdiction to review the remand order.... ” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). The Supreme Court has held that provisions barring review do not apply if the district court exceeds its statutorily-defined' authority to remand. See, e.g., Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 351, 96 S.Ct. 584, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976) (<HOLDING>). In Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Company, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case (B) holding that district court had supplemental jurisdiction over claims challenging administrative decision once case was properly removed based on original jurisdiction arising from constitutional claims (C) holding that the district judge who remanded a properly removed case where there was diversity jurisdiction exceeded statutory authority when he remanded that case based on efficiency (D) holding that rule 32 petition should have been granted where defendant was convicted in circuit court on indictment entered while case was on appeal from transfer order because circuit court lacked jurisdiction where we remanded the case to the juvenile court for further proceedings (E) holding review appropriate where district court had remanded case for procedural defects after 30day time limit in  1447c had expired
Output (English): holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case