Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1956 can no more be the basis of a conspiracy conviction than the conduct itself can be the basis of a substantive conviction.” 833 F.Supp. at 1158. Based upon this observation, the district court concluded, “[T]he money laundering object of the conspiracy fails to state an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i).” Accordingly, the district court dismissed the money laundering object of the conspiracy contained in Count One. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction of the dismissal of a portion of an indictment pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 3731. See Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 69 n. 23, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 2181 n. 23, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Our task is to determine, on plenary review, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order dismissing preliminary objections is interlocutory but an order sustaining them is not (B) holding that an appeal from an order vacating an award while directing a rehearing is an appeal improvidently taken (C) holding appeal from an order dismissing action without prejudice was properly before this court (D) holding there is no statutory barrier to an appeal from an order dismissing only a portion of a count (E) holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired
Output (English): holding that an appeal from an order vacating an award while directing a rehearing is an appeal improvidently taken