Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Cir.2001). Parkhill’s notice of appeal indicates only that he appeals from the district court’s August 25, 2000, order granting summary judgment in Parkhill (III). (Notice of Appeal, Appellant’s App. at 2305.) No mention is made of the district court’s order of a year earlier (Park-hill II) denying class certification. Our court previously has held that an appeal from one order does not “inherently imply” an intent to appeal other orders entered in the action. See Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 208 (8th Cir.1992). Our court also has held on numerous occasions that a notice which manifests an appeal from a specific district court order or decision precludes an appellant from challenging an order or decision that he or she failed to identify in the notice. See Moore, 249 F.3d at 788 (<HOLDING>); C & S Acquisitions Corp. v. Northwest 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment (B) holding that notice of judgment was insufficient (C) holding that appellant could challenge interlocutory partial summary judgment even though notice of appeal stated that appeal was from order sustaining subsequent plea to the jurisdiction (D) holding that notice indicating the appeal was from summary judgment order was insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction to reach appellants challenge to earlier order compelling arbitration (E) holding that notice indicating appeal was from judgment on date of jury verdict was insufficient to preserve appeal from earlier order granting summary judgment
Output (English): holding that appellant could challenge interlocutory partial summary judgment even though notice of appeal stated that appeal was from order sustaining subsequent plea to the jurisdiction