alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 8 , 202 1

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 00868
- CR JUAN GABRIEL SOSA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1612055
- L

ORDER
We DENY appellant’s request to remove the case from the submission
docket. We GRANT appellant’s request to file a supplemental brief address ing two issues. Appellant is ordered to file the supplemental brief , if any, on or before
JANUARY 23 , 2021

. The State ’s responsive brief , if it deems one is necessary,
shall be filed within TEN DAYS of the filing of appellant’s supplemental brief.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### § 29.6037 Stem.

The midrib or large central vein of a tobacco leaf.
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT   Document 747   Filed 12/14/12   Page 1 of 8

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT   Document 747   Filed 12/14/12   Page 2 of 8

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT   Document 747   Filed 12/14/12   Page 3 of 8

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT   Document 747   Filed 12/14/12   Page 4 of 8

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT   Document 747   Filed 12/14/12   Page 5 of 8

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT   Document 747   Filed 12/14/12   Page 6 of 8

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT   Document 747   Filed 12/14/12   Page 7 of 8

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT   Document 747   Filed 12/14/12   Page 8 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4698-TKW-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS and RAYME

EDLER,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the Court based on Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (Doc. 64). The motion is based on a settlement reached 

between Plaintiff and Defendant Escambia County. The motion does not indicate 

Defendants’ position on the motion, but the Court sees no reason to hold the motion 

for a response because Defendants will not be prejudiced by the dismissal of this 

case with prejudice. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 64) is GRANTED, and this case is 

DISMISSED with prejudice with each party to bear their own costs. The Clerk 

shall close the case file.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 65 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 65 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

WILLIE BUD REED, JR,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1279, Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Willie

Bud Reed, Jr. Defendant filed on August 25, 2008, his notice of appeal of this Court’s August 6,

2008, order denying his motion to reduce sentence. Defendant, who is a prisoner, delivered and

therefore filed the instant motion on October 26, 2008. Due to the earlier filed notice of appeal,

this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant motion for reconsideration. See United

States v. Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d 1529, 1532 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam)) (“‘The

filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance–it confers jurisdiction on the

court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over the aspects of the case involved

in the appeal.’”). Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, Doc. 1279, is therefore DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1281 Filed 11/04/08 Page 1 of 1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 211 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to waive the requirement 

for proof of citizenship during the first year of life for children born 

in the United States to a Medicaid-eligible mother. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to waive 

the requirement for proof of citizenship during the first 

year of life for children born in the United States to 

a Medicaid-eligible mother. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicaid Newborn 

5 Coverage Act of 2013’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 211 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT OF PROOF OF CITIZEN2 SHIP DURING FIRST YEAR OF LIFE FOR CHIL3 DREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES TO A 

4 MEDICAID-ELIGIBLE MOTHER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1903(x)(2) of the Social 

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(x)(2)) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and 

8 (E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively; and 

9 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the fol10 lowing new subparagraph: 

11 ‘‘(D) and is a child born to a woman eligible for 

12 and receiving medical assistance under this title on 

13 the date of the child’s birth, without regard to the 

14 child’s basis of eligibility for medical assistance, but 

15 only with respect to medical assistance for items and 

16 services furnished during the child’s first year of 

17 life;’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

20 of this Act and section 1903(x)(2)(D) of the Social Secu21 rity Act, as inserted by subsection (a)(2), shall apply to 

22 children born on or after the date of the enactment of this 

23 Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Consilium, Inc., on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-30381, 33-30382, 33-35363, 33-41312,
33-63346, 33-63512, 33-79474, 33-79458, 333-09885 and 333-14347) of our reports
dated December 6, 1995, except for Note 9, for which the date is May 6, 1996, on
our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Consilium, Inc. as of October 31, 1995 and for each of the two years
in the period ended October 31, 1995, which reports are included in this Form
10-K.


                                             /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

San Jose, California
January 28, 1997
#### § 29.1043 Orange (F).

A reddish yellow.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 3 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 4 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 5 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 6 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 7 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 8 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 9 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 10 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 11 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 12 of 13USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 13 of 13
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. CASE NOS. 4:02cr3-MW/CAS & 

 4:14cv278-MW/CAS 

DANIEL JUNIOR UPSHAW, 

 Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 This Court has considered the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, 

ECF No.52, filed June 19, 2014, and has also reviewed de novo Defendant's 

objections to the report and recommendation, ECF No. 53, filed July 7, 2014. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Defendant's 

objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The 

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, ECF No. 51, is DENIED and 

DISMISSED as untimely. A certificate of appealability is DENIED." The Clerk 

Case 4:02-cr-00003-MW-CAS Document 54 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 2
2 

shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on July 9, 2014. 

 s/Mark E. Walker 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 4:02-cr-00003-MW-CAS Document 54 Filed 07/09/14 Page 2 of 2
From: Mahinske, Jane

Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:59 AM

To: 'Andrea Stacy (E-mail)'; 'Ann Acheson (E-mail)'; 'Ann Mebane (E-mail)'; 'Bruce 

Polkowsky (E-mail)'; 'Chuck Sams (E-mail)'; 'Dean Gillam (E-mail)'; 'Don Shepherd 

(E-mail)'; 'Holly Salazer (E-mail)'; 'Sandra Silva (E-mail)'; 'Tim Allen (E-mail)'

Cc: Ramamurthy, Krishnan; Reiley, Robert A; White, Joseph; Husted, Daniel; 

Hochhauser, Martin; Spicer, Rebecca; Campfield, Kristen; 'Ellen Wentworth (E-mail)'

Subject: BART Analyses - Pennsylvania - Conference Call

Good morning FLMs,

I have tentatively scheduled the conference call to discuss Pennsylvania's BART 

analyses review memos for Friday, October 19, 2007, from 1:30 - 3:30 EDT (Eastern). 

If anyone has a strong objection or conflict to this date and time, please let me know 

ASAP. Otherwise, please mark your calendars and I will email the conference line 

information to everyone a day or two before the 19th. Thank you,

Jane Mahinske

PA DEP, Air Quality

717-783-8949
#### Adkinson *vs.*Stevens.

Coven,.NT. Case 6 j

, Error to th ■ Breckeniidge Circuit; iVÍ’Le i ■, J rige.

*jBill of exceptions. JlmendmcnL*

When the bill 0a,e^Ttó°ns contain the whole eviacaase> an amendment ^sub-TTM1’ quent term, by shewing Ul0te ^ag'“°en on the'trial than the bill of cantainTis inadmissible and a nugaÍ0!T act'

April 18.

Judge Unotrivood

delivered the. opinion of the Court.

Stevens instituted an action of covenant against Adkinson upon a warranty of the soundness of a slave. The breach assigned is a defect in the eyes of the slave which produced total blindness. The judgment must be reversed because there is no evidence in the record, (and the bill of exceptions purports to contain the whole) showing the extent of injury resulting from the blindness of the slave. This would depend upon the value of the slave if she was souhcl and her diminished val e in consequence of blindness. The difference would be the criterion of damages. There is no evidence upon which an opinion can be formed in regard to this matter. At a subsequent term, of the circuit court, and after the writ of error had been sued out, the defendant in error made an attempt to amend the record by showing that testimony had been given upon the trial of the cause, relative to the diminished value of the slave, in consequence of her blindness, that it had been taken down in preparing the exception, and that the paper upon which it had been written was lost, anti thus to account for its non appearance in the *record before*us. *H e can*not receive the proceedings at the subsequent term of the circuit court as curing the defect. These proceedings depend for their accuracy upon the recollections of witnesses. Their recollections are in opposition to the record which is certified as full and complete. The bill of exceptions states that all the evidence given on the trial is before us. If we were to permit parol proof at a subsequent term to supply new and other evidence, we should establish a precedent endangering the principles upon which we have heretofore acted, and which might subject the verity of our records to the artifices of corrupt men. We entertain no suspicion in the present case that any thing improper has been attempted. But we must look to the consequences of the rule if once established, and these forbid its introduction.

*238
      *Crittenden,*for plaintiff; *Richardson*and *Calhoon,*for defendants.

We shall not undertone to deckle the controversy touching the question of uusounduess The evimay be materially variant hereafter.

Judgment reversed with costs and cause remanded for a new trial.
2006-0538.

#### Simpson v. Jackson.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Donovan E. Simpson. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case Nos.: 3:94cr3136/RV/CJK

 3:15cv7/RV/CJK

MARIO EUGENE PRIDE,

Defendant. 

______________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated August 29, 2017 (doc. 535). Defendant has been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No

objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that

the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.
Page 2 of 2

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Defendant’s failure to

comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2017.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### § 29.1053 Red (R).

A brownish red.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
exv10w39



 




Exhibit 10.39


Summary Description of Engenio Information Technologies, Inc. 2004 Incentive Plan




The Engenio Information Technologies, Inc. (“Engenio”) 2004 Incentive Plan (Engenio Plan) is a
subset of the LSI Logic Corporation Section 16(b) Executive Officer Incentive Plan (“LSI Logic
Plan”) and is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of LSI Logic Corporation.
The Board of Directors of LSI Logic Corporation approved the Engenio Plan in February
2004. The targets and funding mechanics of the Engenio Plan are specific to Engenio and are as
follows:



The funding of the Plan is determined using constant multiples of operating income and incremental
revenue. A fixed percentage of operating income and incremental revenue fund the incentive pool.
The bonus pool would increase if Engenio’s revenues grew during the year 2004.



The funding is subject to a threshold of a minimum of 50% to a maximum of 150% of targeted funding.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ John D. MorbergJohn D. MorbergMay 15, 2006
    Chief Financial Officer
MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2004-2122.

#### State ex rel. White v. Preble Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

In Mandamus. On joint motion for issuance of an agreed writ of mandamus. Motion denied. Cause shall continue in mediation.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents and would grant the joint motion and issue the writ.
Order filed April 1, 2014 

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

___________

NO. 01-12-00971-CR

____________

JASON BRIAN CONNOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1791565

ORDER
This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 5.

The clerk of the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8 is directed to deliver to the Clerk 

of this court the original of State's Exhibit 5, on or before April 11, 2014. The 

Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original 

exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon 

completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s Exhibit 5, to the clerk of 

the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**I, Mark R. Holden, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Barge Line Company;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurescontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over the financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                        /s/       Mark R. Holden   Mark R. Holden   President and Chief Executive Officer   Date: November 13, 2006
71
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.890 Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel referrals.

When facts or circumstances indicate that criminal violations, civil fraud, misrepresentations, or regulatory violations may have been committed by an applicant or an intermediary, Rural Development will refer the case to the appropriate Regional Inspector General for Investigations, OIG, USDA, in accordance with RD Instruction 2012-B (available in any Rural Development office) for criminal investigation. Any questions as to whether a matter should be referred will be resolved through consultation with OIG and Rural Development and confirmed in writing. In order to assure protection of the financial and other interests of the Government, a duplicate of the notification will be sent to the OGC. OGC will be consulted on legal questions. After OIG has accepted any matter for investigation, Rural Development staff must coordinate with OIG in advance regarding routine servicing actions on existing loans.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-00060-MP

LINDA CRENSHAW,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 28, Motion for Early Termination of Probation

for Linda Crenshaw. After consultation with the probation office and consideration of Ms.

Crenshaw's performance under supervision, the motion is granted. Ms. Crenshwaw's probation

is hereby terminated.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of November, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cr-00060-MP Document 29 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 1
Summary of Named Executive Officer Base Salaries Effective January 1, 2005



  
 Exhibit 10(rr) 
  
 SUMMARY OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER BASE SALARIES 
 Effective January 1, 2005 
  
 The base salaries of the executive officers of Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (the “Company”) who are the “named executive
officers” for purposes of the Company’s proxy statement for the 2005 annual meeting of shareholders for 2005 are as follows: 
  

					
	 Name

	  	2005 Base Salary

	 
	 Dennis J. Kuester
Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
	  	$	900,000	 
		
	 Mark F. Furlong
Executive Vice President, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation and
President, M&I Marshall & Ilsley
Bank
	  	$	525,000	 
		
	 Frank R. Martire
Senior Vice President, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation and
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metavante
Corporation
	  	$	450,000	 
		
	 Thomas J. O’Neill
Senior Vice President, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation,
Executive Vice President, M&I Marshall & Ilsley
Bank and
President, M&I Bank FSB
	  	$	370,000	 
		
	 James B. Wigdale
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
(Retired)
	  	 	N/A 	(1)



	(1)	Mr. Wigdale retired as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company effective December 31, 2004.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

PRESTON LEONARD SCHOFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv172-AW-HTC

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER

I have considered the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated 

May 29, 2020. ECF No. 5. There have been no objections. I have now determined 

that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, and it is incorporated by 

reference into this order. The clerk shall enter a judgment that says, “This case is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure 

to follow Court orders.” The clerk shall then close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 14, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00172-AW-HTC Document 6 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 1