Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court by any party ... (iii) under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment ... the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order denying a new trial or granting or denying any other such motion. Carr concedes that Osteopathic’s motion for reconsideration was really a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment. Consequently, the date from which the clock started ticking under Rule 4(a)(4) was April 1, 1993. Osteopathic filed its notice of appeal on April 22, 1993, well within 30 days of the district court's April 1 denial of Osteopathic's motion for reconsideration. 6 . The only cases Carr cites in support of his position—-Funkhouser v. City of Newark, 312 F.2d 383, 384 (3d Cir.1962) and District 65, Distributive, Processing & Off Calif., 779 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). 10 . In analyzing Amoco's petition for writ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver (B) holding remand on the basis of partys waiver of right to remove not within  1447c (C) holding that partys failure to develop issue in argument section constitutes waiver of issue (D) holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error (E) holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver
Output (English): holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver