Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): appeared in court on December 7, 2007, and the court dismissed the cases for failure to prosecute because the State had not filed any charging documents in either case. The court subsequently entered orders dismissing the cases with prejudice, because “[t]he State failed to file the charging documents or take any action to prosecute the case.” [¶ 4] The district court generally has jurisdiction to hear criminal eases under N.D. Const, art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06(1), but in this case the issue is whether the court could dismiss a criminal action under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(b) when a charging document has not been filed. This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const, art. VI, §§ 2 and 6, and N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(1). See City of Jamestown v. Snellman, 1998 ND 200, ¶ 5, 586 N.W.2d 494 (<HOLDING>); State v. Howe, 247 N.W.2d 647, 652 (N.D.1976) 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal (B) holding that the value of stolen blank money orders may be established by circumstantial evidence showing the market value for filled in money orders and the fact that the defendants had the necessary equipment to fill in the money orders and to make the completed orders appear valid (C) holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders (D) holding the state may appeal orders of dismissal that have the same effect as orders quashing an information (E) holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291
Output (English): holding that the value of stolen blank money orders may be established by circumstantial evidence showing the market value for filled in money orders and the fact that the defendants had the necessary equipment to fill in the money orders and to make the completed orders appear valid