Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): motions to compel. On March 1, 2012, the District Court (Judge Lono J. Lee) denied Ledbetter’s motions to compel and set trial for April 30, 2012. On April 27, 2012, Ledbetter filed a motion to dismiss for violation of the speedy trial time limits set forth in HRPP Rule 48. Led-better claimed that 221 countable days had elapsed under HRPP Rule 48, which exceeded the six months permitted under the rule. On April 30, 2012, the District Court (Judge Lono J. Lee) held a hearing on Ledbetter’s motion to dismiss. The State stated that it was not ready to proceed to trial because two police officers were sick, and it represented that the HRPP Rule 48 time period did not run until May 12, 2012. The parties argued about the appropriate HRPP Rule 48 computation. After heari h Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The Hawai'i Supreme Court accepted Hern’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case (B) holding that the dismissal of a criminal charge without prejudice under the federal speedy trial act was not a final decision that could be appealed (C) holding that a review committee of the kansas board for discipline of attorneys had the authority to dismiss a complaint against an attorney with or without prejudice and when dismissal was ordered without specifying the nature of the dismissal the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of later proceedings on the same matter (D) holding borough could not appeal dismissal of complaint without prejudice because  dismissal without prejudice is comparable to a nonsuit under the former practice of lavf  (E) holding that the parties stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment
Output (English): holding borough could not appeal dismissal of complaint without prejudice because  dismissal without prejudice is comparable to a nonsuit under the former practice of lavf