judgment or order. Hence, if we conclude that the order of the district court did not comply with Rule 58, that means not only that Johnson’s 180-day window for seeking reopening has not yet closed, but that Johnson does not need such an extension because his initial sixty-day window for filing an appeal has not yet even opened. In relevant part, Rule 58 states: “Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a).” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a), in turn, provides: “All ... ord — consisting of a single sentence denying Johnson’s motion and bereft of any case citation or reasoning — -were regarded as standing alone, it would satisfy Rule 58’s standard. See Kidd, 206 F.3d at 39 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the dispositive question is whether the
holding that an indictment for capital murder must contain at least one aggravating factor holding that specific jurisdiction requires at least butfor causation holding under facts presented that probation officer was entitled to at least qualified immunity holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury holding that rule 58 allows inclusion of at least one citation to legal authority and at least a onesentence explanation of the courts reasoning