alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT PAUL KNOWLES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00166-RH-GRJ

GREGORY DAVIS, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff has filed a second Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

(Doc. 8), but has not provided a Prisoner Consent Form, signed by him, acknowledging

his responsibilities for payment of court costs, and signed by a prison official certifying

the accuracy of the attached inmate bank accounting. The Court notes that Plaintiff

has provided a new address. If Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, he should complete a

new motion for leave to proceed and provide information relevant to his ability to pay

court costs as a person no longer incarcerated. If this is Plaintiff’s current situation,

then no Prisoner Consent Form or inmate account information is necessary.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Review of Plaintiff’s complaint will be deferred until the issue of the filing fee

is resolved.

2. The clerk shall forward to Plaintiff an application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis with financial affidavit for non-prisoners and a Prisoner Consent Form. 

3. Plaintiff shall have until December 3, 2010, to either: (1) file the motion for

leave to proceed as a non-prisoner, if he is no longer incarcerated; or (2) pay the full
Page 2 of 2

$350.00 filing fee, or (3) submit the Prisoner Consent Form completed and signed by

an Authorized Prison Official. 

 4. Failure to respond to this order as instructed may result in the dismissal of

this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of this court. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 18 day of November 2010. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:10-cv-00166-RH -GRJ
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



We hereby consent to the use of the name Collarini Associates and to incorporation by reference of our report dated March 15, 2010, which appears in the annual report on Form 10-K of Saratoga Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, in the Registration Statements of Saratoga Resources, Inc. on Form S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2006 (File No. 333-131624), and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2007 (File No. 333-146985).



/s/ COLLARINI ASSOCIATES

COLLARINI ASSOCIATES

HOUSTON, TEXAS

April 14, 2010
#### ALLISON v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 69 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 200.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 December 1979.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

SUSAN LAFORGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30240

D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00033-SPW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 26, 2016** 

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Susan Laforge appeals from the 6-month sentence and 30-month term of

supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release, as well as the

district court’s order denying her pro se motion to revise her term of supervised

FILED

AUG 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part and

dismiss in part. 

Laforge argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. Laforge’s

notice of appeal was filed over four months after the entry of judgment. Her

appeal of her sentence is, therefore, untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). 

Because the government has properly objected to the untimeliness, we dismiss

Laforge’s appeal of her sentence. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 942

(9th Cir. 2007).

Laforge’s pro se notice of appeal reflects that she is also challenging the

district court’s denial of her motion to revise her term of supervised release. 

Laforge’s appeal from that denial is timely, but lacks merit. As the district court

stated, it had no authority to terminate Laforge’s term of supervised release at the

time she filed her motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (a district court may

terminate a term of supervised release but only “after the expiration of one year of

supervised release”).

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 15-30240
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 216 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63168-63169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5591]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Closed Meeting of the National Advisory Council on Indian 
Education

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education, National Advisory Council on 
Indian Education (NACIE).

[[Page 63169]]


ACTION: Notice of Closed Teleconference Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an 
upcoming teleconference meeting of the National Advisory Council on 
Indian Education (the Council) and is intended to notify the general 
public of the meeting. This notice also describes the functions of the 
Council. Notice of the Council's meetings is required under section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and by the Council's 
charter.
    Agenda: The purpose of the meeting will be for the Council to 
conduct a review of the applications for the vacant position of 
Director of the Office of Indian Education and to make their 
recommendation to the Department. This notice is appearing in the 
Federal Register less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due 
to scheduling difficulties within the agency and with the Council.
    Date and Time: Nov. 15, 2007; 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST.
    Location: The Department of Education will provide a 1-800-call in 
number for all NACIE members.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lana Shaughnessy, Group Leader, Office 
of Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-205-2528. Fax: 202-260-7779.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council advises the Secretary of 
Education on the funding and administration (including the development 
of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any 
program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction and includes Indian 
children or adults as participants or programs that may benefit Indian 
children or adults, including any program established under Title VII, 
Part A of the ESEA. The Council submitted to the Congress June 30 a 
report on the activities of the Council that included recommendations 
the Council considers appropriate for the improvement of Federal 
education programs that include Indian children or adults as 
participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults, and 
recommendations concerning the funding of any such program.
    Records are kept of all Council proceedings and are available for 
public inspection at the Office of Indian Education, United States 
Department of Education, Room 5C140, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20202.

Kerri L. Briggs,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 07-5591 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                            2109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8871
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10980
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   41949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           285839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (249,890)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     41949
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                229125
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              ( 229125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 ( 229125)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)



</TABLE>
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 4 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 5 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 6 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 7 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 8 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 9 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 10 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 11 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 12 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 13 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 14 of 15
Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 106-3 Filed 09/09/11 Page 15 of 15
Moody 10-Q





EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Moody National REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certifies, to his knowledge, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: August 16, 2010


/s/ Brett C. MoodyBrett C. MoodyChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-7-2005

USA v. Quinceno-Montoya

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-1299

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Quinceno-Montoya" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 926.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/926
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No.: 04-1299

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUGO QUICENO MONTOYA

 Appellant 

On Appeal from Final Judgement of the 

United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey

Submitted: March 8, 2005

Before: NYGAARD, McKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Opinion filed in this case on June 1, 2005,

be amended as follows:

On page 4, delete the sentence beginning “The letter declares Montoya’s

innocense . . . .” and replace it with “The letter declares Montoya’s

innocence . . . .”

On Page 6, delete “Montes-Lenya” and replace with “Montes-Leyva.” On

that same page, delete the sentence “However, that evidence would ‘if

anything . . . a possible discrepancy.’ A109,” and replace with “However,

that evidence would ‘if anything . . . present[] a possible discrepancy.’

A125.”. Again, on the same page, delete “. . . was guilty as charged.’ Id.,”

and replace with “. . . was guilty as charged.’ A 109.”

On page 7, delete the following sentence from the Opinion: “However, it is

now clear that the court could not rely upon that drug quantity to increase
Montoya’s sentence unless he admitted it, or the quantity was proven

beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.”

BY THE COURT

/s/ Theodore A. McKee

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 7, 2005

CMH/cc: BPR, SGC, DBL, GSL
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-55521]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55


Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 53 to 59, 
revised as of July 1, 2007, in Appendix A to Part 55, on page 143, in 
the second column, above paragraph (b), the heading and paragraph (a) 
for California are reinstated to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 55--Listing of State and Local Requirements 
Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State

* * * * *

California

    (a) State requirements.
    (1) The following requirements are contained in State of 
California Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, February 2006:

Barclays California Code of Regulations

    The following sections of Title 17 Subchapter 6:

17 Sec.  92000--Definitions (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92100--Scope and Policy (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92200--Visible Emission Standards (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92210--Nuisance Prohibition (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92220--Compliance with Performance Standards (Adopted 5/31/
91)
17 Sec.  92400--Visible Evaluation Techniques (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92500--General Provisions (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92510--Pavement Marking (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92520--Stucco and Concrete (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92530--Certified Abrasive (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  92540--Stucco and Concrete (Adopted 5/31/91)
17 Sec.  93115--Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 
Compression Ignition Engines (Adopted 2/26/04)

Health and Safety Code

    The following section of Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 4, Article 
1:
    Health and Safety Code Sec.  42301.13 of seq. Stationary 
sources: demolition or removal (chaptered 7/25/96)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 07-55521 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 3:01cr82/LAC

3:05cv100/LAC/MD

DANIEL JUAREZ

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on March 31, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after

reviewing objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is

adopted as the opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (doc. 153) is summarily

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2005.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cr-00082-LC-MD Document 156 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 1
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 26, 2010

s0222 

# Order

February 26, 2010

139696

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139696 COA: 290450 Wayne CC: 87-004541 PAUL YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 10, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Real Goods Solar, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Erik Zech, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 10, 2011



/s/ Erik ZechErik ZechChief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
# C_2009189EN.01000601.xml

| 12.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 August 2009

2009/C 189/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4166 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,72 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4449 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85840 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3486 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5301 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8265 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,770 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 273,10 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7011 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1740 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2163 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1225 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6965 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5537 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9793 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1126 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0489 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 759,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,5304 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6825 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3224 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 054,16 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9730 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,596 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,7690 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,228 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6277 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,3946 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,9400 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4166

JPY

Japanese yen

136,72

DKK

Danish krone

7,4449

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85840

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3486

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5301

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8265

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,770

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

273,10

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7011

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1740

RON

Romanian leu

4,2163

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1225

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6965

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5537

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9793

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1126

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0489

KRW

South Korean won

1 759,28

ZAR

South African rand

11,5304

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6825

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3224

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 054,16

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9730

PHP

Philippine peso

67,596

RUB

Russian rouble

45,7690

THB

Thai baht

48,228

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6277

MXN

Mexican peso

18,3946

INR

Indian rupee

67,9400

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2011034EN.01000401.xml

| 3.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/4

---

Commission information notice pursuant to the procedure laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 34/05

| Member State | Italy |
| --- | --- |
| Scheduling route concerned | Reggio Calabria–Venice Tessera and vice versa
  Reggio Calabria–Turin Caselle and vice versa
  Reggio Calabria–Milan Malpensa and vice versa
  Reggio Calabria–Bologna Borgo Panigale and vice versa
  Reggio Calabria–Pisa San Giusto and vice versa |
| Date of repeal of the public service obligations on these routes | 18 November 2010 |
| Address where information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | ENAC (Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile) |
| Direzione centrale sviluppo economico |
| Direzione sviluppo trasporto aereo |
| Viale del Castro Pretorio 118 |
| 00185 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |
| http://www.enac.gov.it |
| E-mail: osp@enac.gov.it |

Member State

Italy

Scheduling route concerned

Reggio Calabria–Venice Tessera and vice versa

Reggio Calabria–Turin Caselle and vice versa

Reggio Calabria–Milan Malpensa and vice versa

Reggio Calabria–Bologna Borgo Panigale and vice versa

Reggio Calabria–Pisa San Giusto and vice versa

Date of repeal of the public service obligations on these routes

18 November 2010

Address where information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

ENAC (Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile)

Direzione centrale sviluppo economico

Direzione sviluppo trasporto aereo

Viale del Castro Pretorio 118

00185 Roma RM

ITALIA

http://www.enac.gov.it

E-mail: osp@enac.gov.it

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

REGINALD C. POWELL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv26-RH/WCS

WALTER McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 16). No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED without

prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on July 9, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge