Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): adjudication.” We read this representation as a request by the Petitioners to withdraw the instant petition, and we dismiss the petition on that basis. We do not address at this time whether this court otherwise lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. DISMISSED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . See In re Allstate Ins. Co., 8 F.3d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1993) ("We may review a remand order on petition for writ of mandamus ... provided that it was entered on grounds not authorized by [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c).”). But see Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-15, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (<HOLDING>). 2 . 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) ("An order remanding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding remand orders not subsumed under statute barring review of remand orders based on defect in removal or on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be appealed pursuant to 28 usc  1291 (B) holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders (C) holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291 (D) holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291 (E) holding that orders overruling claims of privilege and requiring disclosure are immediately appealable as collateral orders
Output (English): holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291