Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 3727 does not forbid assignments of claims against the government for the benefit of creditors). Furthermore, the transfer occurred pursuant to the bankruptcy court order dated April 15, 1996, which appointed the receiver of the claim against the government “for the benefit of those entitled thereto.” Price, 173 U.S. at 424-25, 19 S.Ct. 434. The Price court made clear that transfers to an appointed receiver for the benefit of creditors exempts the debt owed from the nullifying effects of § 3727. See id. Thus, the Court finds that any assignment or transfer of Mrs. Roger’s tax refund claims to the bankruptcy trustee arose by operation of law, a transfer not affected by the proscriptive demands of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727. See Redfield v. U.S., 27 Ct.Cl. 393 (1892) (<HOLDING>). Second, the government maintains that a 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states (B) holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state (C) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state (D) holding that an appointment by a state court in proceedings supplementary to execution against an insolvent effects a transfer of his claim against the united states by operation of law and does not come within the act prohibiting the assignment of claims (E) holding that the accused item was used by the government under an older version of  1498 and that therefore the only remedy was a suit against the united states in the court of claims now the court of federal claims
Output (English): holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state