Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): setting forth only the BAP’s judgment. Accordingly, by operation of our rules of appellate procedure, the Tau-moepeaus had 180 days within which to file their notice of appeal and their notice, received by the BAP clerk on October 2, 2006, fell well within this period. To be sure, the separate document rule is a technical one. But, as its name implies, it generally requires that judgment be entered in a separate document, one that is “not made part of the opinion and order” of the court. Mondragon v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir.2008). A combined document denominated an “Order and Judgment,” containing factual background, legal reasoning, as well as a judgment, generally will not satisfy the rule’s prescription. See, e.g., Clough v. Rush, 959 F.2d 182, 185 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees (B) holding that a district courts combined order and judgment did not satisfy the rule on account of being fifteen pages long and containing detailed legal analysis along with citations in addition to providing for entry of judgment (C) holding that a district courts summary judgment order did not meet rule 58s requirements because it was fifteen pages long and it contained detailed legal analysis and reasoning (D) holding that a district courts marginal order granting summary judgment did not meet the strict requirements of rule 58 because a party may reasonably be confused as to the standing of its ease when a decision is rendered in such an informal manner (E) holding that the rule 12b6 ruling was not a final judgment and did not bind the district court at summary judgment
Output (English): holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees