Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the Forfeiture Action The first question presented on this appeal is whether administrative forfeiture actions brought within the 120-day time period sufficiently comply with the letter of the law, as provided in § 924(d)(1), when the judicial proceedings are not brought also within the permissible 120 days. Section 924(d)(1) provides, in part: “Any action or proceeding for the forfeiture of firearms or ammunition shall be commenced within one hundred a 738, 741 (S.D.Tex.1998), aff'd, 54 Fed. Appx. 405, 2002 WL 31688616, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct.28, 2002) (concluding that the statute required “either an administrative forfeiture proceeding or a judicial forfeiture action within 120 days of a seizure”); United States v. Fourteen Various Firearms, 889 F.Supp. 875, 877 (E.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Twelve Miscellaneous 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal (B) holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial (C) holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because both the administrative and the judicial forfeiture actions were not commenced within the 120day timeframe (D) holding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the circuit court had the power to remand the agency decision for further proceedings (E) holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed without proper authority
Output (English): holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial