Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): proceedings and in courts of law would appear to constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of due process, since the holder of the right to payment would never have an opportunity to be heard concerning property already allegedly owed her. Nat’l Union, 28 F.3d at 390-91 (emphasis original). Other courts have allowed for the possibility of declaratory claims under § 1821 as well. See, e.g., Tri-State, 79 F.3d at 715 n. 12 (discussing Third Circuit decision, stating “the administrative claims procedures and the jurisdictional bar have concurrent scope, which suggests that declaratory judgment actions could be raised in the administrative forum”) (citing Hudson United Bank v. Chase Manhattan Bank of Conn., N.A., 43 F.3d 843, 849-50 (3d Cir.1994)); see also Freeman, 56 F.3d at 1403-05 (<HOLDING>); Henderson v. Bank of New England, 986 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs could have filed administrative claim and then de novo claim in district court seeking a determination regarding their obligations to the fdic (B) holding that a court of appeals should review de novo a district courts determination of state law (C) holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo (D) holding we review claim construction de novo on appeal (E) holding in the criminal context that a district courts obligation to make a de novo determination with respect to the portions of a magistrate judges report and recommendation to which objections are made did not require a de novo hearing
Output (English): holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo