Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Estate of Trentadue ex rel. Aguilar v. United States, 397 F.3d 840, 852 (10th Cir.2005). 23 . See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 24 . 28 C.F.R. §§ 14.1-14.11. 25 . See King v. United States, No. 12-CV-616-JED-TLW, 2013 WL 1856472, at *3 (N.D.Okla. May 2, 2013) (recognizing the lack of Tenth Circuit authority on whether compliance with the regulations is part of the exhaustion requirement, but following the majority of circuit courts, which have concluded that the regulations are not part of the jurisdictional presentment requirement). 26 . See id. at *4 (finding, "consistent with the majority position,” that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the regulations did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction). 27 . See, e.g., Tucker v. U.S. Postal Serv., 676 F.2d 954, 960 (3d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that notice requirements under former rule 40b1 are jurisdictional (B) holding that notice requirements under rule 252b3 are jurisdictional (C) holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional (D) holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional (E) holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature
Output (English): holding that notice requirements under former rule 40b1 are jurisdictional