Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the argument, the District Court indicated that in reliance on Judge Lo’s previous ruling, which charged time to the State, it was determining that HRPP Rule 48 has been violated. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, but did not state a reason for its dismissal without prejudice. The District Court entered its judgment dismissing the charge without prejudice on April 30, 2012. III. On February 14, 2012, this court filed an order dismissing Hern’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We ruled that the District Court’s judgment dismissing Hern’s charge without prejudice was not a final appealable judgement because there was no final adjudication on the merits and no sentence imposed against Hern, citing State v. Kilborn, 109 Hawai'i 435, 127 P.3d 95 (App.2005) (<HOLDING>), and United States v. Tsosie, 966 F.2d 1357 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 (B) holding sanction included in final judgment appealable (C) holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence (D) holding that even an order that establishes entitlement to a judgment is not final unless it  actually enters or renders a judgment  or includes specific language of finality necessary for a judgment  to be considered final for purposes of an appeal (E) recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment
Output (English): recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment