alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN REPLY 

REFER TO:

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Mid-Pacific Regional Office 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, California 95825-1898 

October 1, 2003 

MP-3400 

WTR-1.10 

Subject: Water Service Contract Notification of Draft 2004 Irrigation and/or Municipal & 

Industrial (M&I) Central Valley Project Water Rates for 60-Day Review Period 

Commencing on the Date of this Letter. 

Dear Water Contractor: 

This letter provides notification of the draft 2004 Irrigation and M&I water rates. The rates 

applicable to your water service contract(s) are available on the internet at 

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpwaterrates/. On Schedule A-1 under Section A, the draft 2004 water 

rate(s) are listed alphabetically by contractor under the applicable water service area. Supporting 

schedules of the 2004 rates are also provided on this site. 

If you have any questions or comments on the 2004 draft water rates, please contact the 

applicable Ratesetting Service Staff: 

Irrigation: Ms. Linda Bringle at 916-978-5391 or; 

 Ms. Maureen Reynoso at 916-978-5374 

 

 M & I: Ms. Masako Altman at 916-978-5365 or; 

 Ms. Tasia Papajohn at 916-978-5367 

 Or any of the above at TDD 916-978-5608. 

Sincerely, 

Lawrence J. Bauman 

Ratesetting Services Manager 

Business Resources Center
Subject: Water Service Contract Notification of Draft 2004 Water Rates 2

cc: 

George Senn 

Central Valley Project Water Association 

1521 I Street 

Sacramento CA 95814 

Ron Jacobsma 

Friant Water Users Authority 

854 North Harvard Ave. 

Lindsay CA 93247 

Tona Mederios 

San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority 

PO Box 2157 

Los Banos CA 93635 

Michael Hagman 

Tehama Colusa Canal Authority 

PO Box 1025 

Willows CA 95988 

(Each with a list of contractors attached)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel GONZALEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40034.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 2, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’S Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for D efendant-App ellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Miguel Angel Gonzalez-Vargas appeals his sentence from a guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a deported alien. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). Gonzalez-Vargas argues that his sentence should be vacated and remanded because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory Guideline scheme held unconstitutional in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

As the Government concedes, Gonzalez-Vargas’s “Fanfan” claim is reviewed for harmless error. *See United States v. Walters,*418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir.2005). The instant record fails to provide clear commentary from the district court regarding whether it would have imposed the same sentence under a *post-Booker*environment. *See id.*Accordingly, the district court’s “Fanfan” error was not harmless on the instant record. *See id.*

Gonzalez-Vargas also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Gonzalez-Vargas contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Gonzalez-Vargas properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit *840precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

We VACATE Gonzalez-Vargas’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### §588. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–206, §8, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 739, which related to distribution of funds to members of the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 527.26

 527.98

 529.37

 530.33

 531.71

 532.60

 533.61

 534.62

 535.61

 536.57

 537.52

 538.46

 538.94

 539.31

 539.71

 540.17

 540.63

 541.02

 541.91

 542.21

 542.50

 542.80

 542.99

 542.98

 542.93

 543.03

 543.03

 543.00

 542.97

 542.93

 542.89

 1,831,294

 1,840,132

 1,857,236

 1,869,081

 1,886,153

 1,897,192

 1,909,747

 1,922,330

 1,934,692

 1,946,706

 1,958,619

 1,970,433

 1,976,475

 1,981,136

 1,986,180

 1,991,986

 1,997,798

 2,002,730

 2,014,001

 2,017,806

 2,021,486

 2,025,295

 2,027,708

 2,027,581

 2,026,946

 2,028,217

 2,028,217

 2,027,835

 2,027,454

 2,026,946

 2,026,438

STORAGE

+5,516

+8,838

+17,104

+11,845

+17,072

+11,039

+12,555

+12,583

+12,362

+12,014

+11,913

+11,814

+6,042

+4,661

+5,044

+5,806

+5,812

+4,932

+11,271

+3,805

+3,680

+3,809

+2,413

-127

-635

+1,271

+0

-382

-381

-508

-508

CHANGE

3,111

5,289

9,927

7,024

10,401

6,604

7,282

6,454

6,371

6,224

6,192

6,152

3,248

2,562

2,746

3,139

3,122

2,662

5,897

2,213

2,211

2,232

1,577

0

0

943

0

0

0

0

0

PUMPING

 168

 169

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

POWER

 71

 74

 90

 80

 76

 92

 98

 94

 110

 126

 125

 135

 137

 130

 116

 110

 110

 114

 120

 139

 187

 209

 209

 201

 208

 216

 214

 189

 201

 204

 124

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

-91

-590

-1,214

-972

-1,718

-947

-854

-16

-28

-41

-61

-61

-65

-82

-86

-102

-82

-61

-94

-156

-169

-103

-152

+137

-112

-86

+214

-4

+9

-52

-133

OR

 32

 40

 4

 40

 60

 64

 40

 16

 28

 41

 61

 61

 65

 82

 86

 102

 82

 86

 94

 156

 169

 103

 152

 123

 74

 86

 111

 119

 82

 90

 144

C.F.S.

 .08

 .10

 .01

 .10

 .15

 .16

 .10

 .04

 .07

 .10

 .15

 .15

 .16

 .20

 .21

 .25

 .20

 .21

 .23

 .38

 .41

 .25

 .37

 .30

 .18

 .21

 .27

 .29

 .20

 .22

 .35

INCHES

 .07

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .11

 .00

 .00

 .23

 .04

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR April 24, 2000

DAILY OPERATIONS

MARCH 2000 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +200,660 113,583 337 4,309 0 -7,772 2,493 6.10 .47

ACRE-FEET +200,660 225,292 668 8,547 0 -15,416 4,945

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 668

PACHECO TUNNEL 8,547 TOTAL 9,215

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 1999 TO DATE = 7.88

 1,825,778

SPILL 0 .47

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Programs of HUD [electronic resource].
 
SuDoc:HH 1.100:
ItemNumber:0582-N-03(online)
CGPsystem Number: 000612476
 
Current
 
2003
2005
2006
2013
2016
 
 **
§ 3715.2-1 What additional characteristic(s) must my occupancy have? In addition to the requirements specified in § 3715.2, your occupancy must involve one or more of the following: ( a ) Protecting exposed, concentrated or otherwise accessible valuable minerals from theft or loss;
( b ) Protecting from theft or loss appropriate, operable equipment which is regularly used, is not readily portable, and cannot be protected by means other than occupancy;
( c ) Protecting the public from appropriate, operable equipment which is regularly used, is not readily portable, and if left unattended, creates a hazard to public safety;
( d ) Protecting the public from surface uses, workings, or improvements which, if left unattended, create a hazard to public safety; or
( e ) Being located in an area so isolated or lacking in physical access as to require the mining claimant, operator, or workers to remain on site in order to work a full shift of a usual and customary length. A full shift is ordinarily 8 hours and does not include travel time to the site from a community or area in which housing may be obtained.
§ 49.20 Does this part create new rights or entitlements? ( a ) This part does not create any right, privilege, benefit, or entitlement for any person who is not an officer or employee of the United States acting in that capacity.
( b ) Only an officer or employee of the United States acting in that capacity has standing to file a civil action in a court of the United States to enforce this part.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 17: The relationship between seven variables and the use of US government technical reports by US aerospace engineers and scientistsA study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and seven selected sociometric variables. Data were collected by means of a self-administered mail survey which was distributed to a randomly drawn sample of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) members. Two research questions concerning the use of conference meeting papers, journal articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports were investigated. Relevance, technical quality, and accessibility were found to be more important determinants of the overall extent to which U.S. government technical reports and three other information products were used by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.Document ID19920018872Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsPinelli, Thomas E.*(Rensselaer Research Corp. Troy, NY., United States)*Barclay, Rebecca O.*(Indiana Univ. Bloomington., United States)*Kennedy, John M.*(Continental Research Norfolk, VA., United States)*Glassman, Nanci*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Demerath, Loren*(Indiana Univ. Bloomington., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryDocumentation And Information ScienceReport/Patent NumberAD-B164872LNASA-TM-107950NAS 1.15:107950Meeting InformationMeeting: Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information ScienceLocation: Washington, DCCountry: United StatesStart Date: October 30, 1991Accession Number92N28115Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAGW-1682Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920018872.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §5674. Penalty for unlawful production or removal of beer

#### (a) Unlawful production

Any person who brews beer or produces beer shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, unless such beer is brewed or produced in a brewery qualified under subchapter G or such production is exempt from tax under section 5053(e) (relating to beer for personal or family use).

#### (b) Unlawful removal

Any brewer or other person who removes or in any way aids in the removal from any brewery of beer without complying with the provisions of this chapter or regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1408; amended Pub. L. 95–458, §2(b)(5)(A), Oct. 14, 1978, 92 Stat. 1256.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5674, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 696, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–458 substituted "production or removal" for "removal" in section catchline, redesignated existing provision as subsec. (b), and added subsec. (a).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–458 effective on first day of first calendar month beginning more than 90 days after Oct. 14, 1978, see section 2(c) of Pub. L. 95–458, set out as a note under section 5042 of this title.
### §278. Repealed. Pub. L. 90–280, §1, Mar. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 71

Section, acts June 7, 1897, ch. 3, §1, 30 Stat. 79; Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 146, §21, 39 Stat. 988, declared the settled policy of the Government to be opposed to the making of any appropriations whatever out of the Treasury of the United States for the education of Indian children in any sectarian school. See section 278a of this title.
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                   FORM 10-Q/A


                       QUANTITATIVE METHODS CORPORATION
             (exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

         NEVADA                                               87-0485310
(State or other jurisdiction of                          (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)                          Identification Number)

3098 So. Highland Drive, Suite 460
Salt Lake City, Utah                                       84106
(Address of principal executive offices)                 (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code (801) 485-7775

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

     The undersigned  registrant  hereby amends the following  items,  financial
statements,  exhibits or other portions of its Form 10-Q dated August 7, 1996 as
set forth in the page attached hereto:

                      Exhibit 27 - Financial Data Schedule




<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the  requirements  of the  Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
the  registrant  has duly  caused  this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                 QUANTITATIVE METHODS CORPORATION


Dated: November 11, 1996          s/ Krista Nielson
                                 Krista Nielson, President, CEO and Director


Dated: November 11, 1996          s/ David R. Yeaman
                                 David R. Yeaman, Secretary/Treasurer,
                                                  CFO and Director
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 2, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O RT H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16283 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 1 6 5 - C R - T - 2 7 E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s H I L A R I O S A L IN A S - L O P E Z , a. k. a. Juan L op ez D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju ly 2, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an dB A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E RC U R I A M:2

A le x F itz g e r a ldH a ll, ap p o in te dc o u n s e l f o rH ilar io S a lin a s - L o p e z in th is di r e c tc r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr aw f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the ap p e llan t an df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u an t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x am in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o ar g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and S a l i na s - L ope z ’ s c onvi c t i on and se nt ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
#### § 3130.4 Leasing: General.
Filed 10/3/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 222

In the Interest of S.R.

Prairie St. John’s, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

S.R., Respondent and Appellant

No. 20180346

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas R. Olson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Joshua J. Traiser, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and appellee.

Jared J. Hines, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

Interest of S.R.

No. 20180346

Per Curiam.

[¶1]S.R. appealed from a district court order granting Prairie St. John’s Hospital’s request to involuntarily treat S.R. with prescription medication.  The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that the factors for involuntary medication of a patient under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-18.1 were met.  On appeal, S.R. argues the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion.  We conclude the district court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and are not clearly erroneous.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte
TO: Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM: Patrick Goodwin, ERG

DATE: September 30, 2015

SUBJECT: Index for Supporting Documentation for the National Scale Immediate 

Receiving Water Model [DCN SE04558]

This document serves as the index for the supporting documentation for the National 

Scale Immediate Receiving Water (IRW) Model, developed as part of the Environmental 

Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category (EA Report), Document No. EPA-821-R-15-006 (DCN 

SE04527). The supporting documentation for this model includes the files listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Supporting Documentation

Attachment 

ID Document Name Brief Description

A1

Attachment 1: Final 

Steam EA IRW Model -

Wildlife and Human 

Health Module -

Wildlife Summary Table 

Generator (CCR) - DCN 

SE04558A1

Database used to summarize the wildlife modeling results for baseline 

and regulatory options. Generates the Wildlife Summary Tables 

spreadsheet. This version accounts for the CCR rulemaking.

A2

Attachment 2: Final 

Steam EA IRW Model -

Wildlife and Human 

Health Module -

Wildlife Summary 

Tables (CCR) - DCN 

SE04558A2

Spreadsheet that summarizes the wildlife modeling results for 

baseline and regulatory options. This version accounts for the CCR 

rulemaking.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61084-CIV-ALTMAN/Reid

DEREK S. SINCLAIR,

Petitioner, 

vs.

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (the “Petition”) [ECF No. 1]. On August 24, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge 

Lisette M. Reid entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 6], in which she 

recommended that this Court deny the Petition. See Report at 7. In that Report, Magistrate Judge 

Reid warned the Petitioner:

Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen (14) 

days of receipt of a copy of the Report. Failure to file timely objections shall bar 

petitioner from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered 

in this report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal factual findings 

accepted or adopted by the District Judge except upon grounds of plain error or 

manifest injustice.

Id. The Petitioner filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed. 

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts 

must review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But when no party has timely 

objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation 

omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has 

acknowledged that Congress’ intent was to require de novo review only where objections have 

Case 0:20-cv-61084-RKA Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

been properly filed—and not, as here, when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a 

magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when 

neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate 

[judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 

855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 

1982)).

The Court has reviewed the Report, the Petition, the record, and the applicable law and 

can find no clear error in the Report. Accordingly, the Court hereby

ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is 

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as follows:

1. The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case, all pending hearings and 

deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 18th day of September 2020. 

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Derek S. Sinclair, pro se

Case 0:20-cv-61084-RKA Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2020 Page 2 of 2