Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice, by which a party prosecutes another party for the enforcement or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense.”); cf. Blomdahl v. Blomdahl, 2011 ND 78, ¶¶ 6-8, 796 N.W.2d 649 (contempt proceedings under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-25.1 held not an “action upon the judgment” under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15(1)). [¶ 12] Because the statutory procedure for renewal by J11, 2007 WL 1453132, at *1 (Bankr.N.D.Cal. May 17, 2007) (stating Burk did not even consider § 108(c)). But see Autoskill Inc. v. National Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476,1483 n. 3 (10th Cir.1993) (agreeing with Burk that § 108(b) applies to filing of a notice of appeal); Di Maggio v. Blache, 466 So.2d 489, 490-91 (La.Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 15] In support of its position that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal (B) holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal (D) holding  108b2 extended unexpired period for filing appeal but holding appeal was untimely (E) holding 11 usc  108b2 applied to extend unexpired 60day period to file notice of appeal to 60 days after order for relief but that appeal was untimely
Output (English): holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal