could be made. The psychologist also acknowledged that appellant’s recent good grades could be an attempt “to por tray a very favorable impression” in light of his pending charges. The record also is replete with evidence that appellant’s defiant and uncooperative behavior continued during his detention and the investigation of this matter by providing different and conflicting versions of his involvement in the offense and his involvement in the gang to police officers and certification 4, 711 (Minn.2008) (stating that consideration of pre-offense voluntary programming and “defiant and uncooperative behavior during [defendant’s] detention” relative to the “programming history” factor was not an abuse of discretion); In re Welfare of K.M., 544 N.W.2d 781, 785 (Minn.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). The majority is correct that section
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering juveniles failure to participate in school programs and affiliation with gangs under the programming history factor holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when considering the reactive nature of the federal claim holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court