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

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

AUSTIN CAREY JONES,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00135-MP-AK

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5, an amended petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and Doc. 6, a motion for leave to proceed as a pauper.

Petitioner challenges his 2005 Alachua County convictions for sexual battery and unlawful

sexual activity with certain minors. Petitioner concedes that he was previously denied relief

under § 2254 with respect to the same convictions. See Doc. 5 at 3; Jones v. McDonough, Case

No. 1:07-cv-173-MP-AK, Docs. 22, 32, 40 (N.D. Fla.) (orders denying petition and COA, and

Eleventh Circuit order denying COA). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), this Court cannot consider a second or successive

habeas petition until a panel of the Eleventh Circuit has authorized its filing. There is no

indication that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for filing this case, and thus, it is not
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00135-MP-AK

properly before this Court for consideration. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That the motion to proceed as a pauper, Doc. 6, is DENIED

2. That this case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 

FORM OF 
 CERTIFICATE OF
FORMATION 
 OF 

SANCHEZ PRODUCTION PARTNERS GP LLC 

This Certificate of Formation of Sanchez Production Partners GP LLC (the “LLC”), dated [•], 2014, is being duly
executed and filed by Lorena Nichols, as an authorized person, to form a limited liability company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del. C. §18-101, et seq.) 

FIRST. The name of the limited liability company formed hereby is Sanchez Production Partners GP LLC. 

SECOND. The address of the registered office of the LLC in the State of Delaware is Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. 
 THIRD. The name and address of the registered agent for service of process on the LLC in the State of
Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 in the County of New Castle. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation as of the date first set forth above. 
  

	
	   

	Lorena Nichols
	Authorized Person
#### H. C. F. WILLIAMS v. NONNIE WALLACE HADLOCK.

(Filed 10 November, 1965.)

Appeal by defendant from *Nimocks, E.J.,*January 1965 Session of MooRE.

Civil action in which plaintiff seeks to recover $80 from the defendant for work done and performed for defendant under an alleged verbal contract and an additional amount of $117 for alleged additional work done and performed by plaintiff for defendant at her request, or a total of $197. Defendant by way of counterclaim seeks to recover from plaintiff the sum of $270 for damages allegedly done to her property by plaintiff and for money allegedly expended by defendant to complete the work plaintiff was allegedly supposed to do under the verbal contract. The case was first heard in the court of a justice of the peace and from an adverse judgment defendant appealed to the superior court. In the superior court the parties introduced evidence and the following issues were submitted to the jury and answered as shown:

“1. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant for work performed by plaintiff in behalf of defendant?

“Answer: $197.00.

“2. What amount, if any, is the defendant entitled to recover of the plaintiff for alleged damages to defendant’s property?

“Answer: $10.00.”

From a judgment that plaintiff have and recover from defendant the sum of $187 with interest until paid and the costs of this action, defendant appeals to the Supreme Court.

*Barrett & Wilson by W. Clement Barrett for defendant appellant.*

*Seawell & Seawell & Van Camp by H. F. Seawell, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.*

*596Per CuRiam.

The evidence offered by the parties was in sharp conflict. The applicable law is well settled, and not complicated. The jury under a charge by the court free from prejudicial error has answered the issues as set forth above. All defendant’s assignments of error have been carefully examined, and error has not been shown that would warrant disturbing the verdict and judgment below. In the trial we find

No error.
# CA2009099EN.01S00301.xml

| 30.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 99/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 99/s3

---

REVIEW OF‘COMPETITION’ C A OJs

REVIEW OF

COMPETITION

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 9 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | (IT) |
| 12 | (DE/FR) |
| 13 | |
| 14 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 16 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 17 | (BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO) |
| 20 | |
| 21 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 23 | |
| 24 | (DE/FR/NL) |
| 25 | (BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO) |
| 28 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 34 | (FR) |
| 36 | (GA/EN) |
| 37 | |
| 38 | |
| 39 | (SV) |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | (EN) |
| 45 | |
| 46 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 47 | |
| 52 | (DA/FI/MT) |
| 58 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 59 | (DE/EN/ES/FR/PT/SV) |
| 62 | (BG/CS/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 63 | |
| 70 | |
| 71 | |
| 75 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 80 | (FR) |
| 84 | (BG/RO) |
| 86 | |
| 91 | |
| 93 | (BG/RO) |
| 94 | |
| 95 | |
| 97 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 98 | |
| 99 | (GA/EN) |

9

(DE/EN/FR)

10

(IT)

12

(DE/FR)

13

14

(DE/EN/FR)

16

(DE/EN/FR)

17

(BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO)

20

21

(DE/EN/FR)

23

24

(DE/FR/NL)

25

(BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO)

28

(DE/EN/FR)

34

(FR)

36

(GA/EN)

37

38

39

(SV)

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

(EN)

45

46

(DE/EN/FR)

47

52

(DA/FI/MT)

58

(DE/EN/FR)

59

(DE/EN/ES/FR/PT/SV)

62

(BG/CS/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK)

63

70

71

75

(DE/EN/FR)

80

(FR)

84

(BG/RO)

86

91

93

(BG/RO)

94

95

97

(DE/EN/FR)

98

99

(GA/EN)

---
Exhibit 23.1









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 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) of our report dated March 9, 2011 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Saratoga Resources, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then ended..







/s/ MALONEBAILEY, LLP

MALONEBAIILEY, LLP

www.malone-bailey.com

HOUSTON, TEXAS

March 10, 2011
# C_2009045EN.01002501.xml

| 24.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/25

---

Corrigendum to the public holidays in 2009

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 14 of 21 January 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 14 of 21 January 2009

(2009/C 45/07)

On page 6, under ‘Belgique/België’:

for:

‘[...] 1.6, 21.7, 22.7, 15.8, [...]’,

read:

‘[...] 1.6, 20.7, 21.7, 15.8, [...]’.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAWRENCE L. BLANKENSHIP,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv250/MCR/EMT

KENNETH L. WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Response to Court Motion for Filing Fee and

Motion to Proceed In For[m]a Pauperis” [sic] (Doc. 5). 

In his Response, Plaintiff indicates that when he initiated this case he thought he could file

it “jointly” with another action for a single filing fee.1 Plaintiff states that he “apologize[s] for any

misunderstand[ing], and files Motion to withdraw[] the complaint for lack of financial at this time

in support of this motion” (Doc. 5 at 2). Based on Plaintiff’s statements, the court construes the

instant response as a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that an action may be dismissed

without an order of the court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the adverse party

serves an answer or files a motion for summary judgment. Because Defendant has not yet been

served in the instant case, it is clear that Plaintiff is automatically entitled to a voluntary dismissal

at this time. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1

 The other action apparently is Case No. 3:10cv248/MCR/EMT. The docket reflects that Plaintiff paid the

filing fee of $350.00 in full for this case. 
Page 2 of 2

That Plaintiff’s Response, treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. 5), be GRANTED

and this case be DISMISSED, without prejudice.

At Pensacola, Florida this 18th day of August 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope

of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d

698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No. 3:10cv250/MCR/EMT
# C_2010038EN.01000101.xml

| 16.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5648 — OTPP/Macquarie/Bristol Airport)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 38/01

On 11 December 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5648. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5648. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enox Biopharma, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Razi Mizrahi,
Principal 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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: April 29, 2009                       By: /s/ Razi Mizrahi
                                              ----------------------------------
                                           Name:  Razi Mizrahi
                                           Title: Secretary and Treasurer
                                                  Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32








CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Annual Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and as amended (the
“Report”), Walter S. Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko
A. Beran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to his/her knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/Walter S.
Woltosz


Walter S.
Woltosz


Chief
Executive Officer


March 1, 2010





/s/Momoko A.
Beran


Momoko A.
Beran


Chief
Financial Officer


March 1, 2010





(A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LYNDA BROADWAY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv465-SPM/WCS

TALLAHASSEE AUTO INVESTORS

I LLC, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND

STAYING CASE

This cause comes before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Compel

Arbitration and Stay Judicial Proceedings (doc. 7). Upon consideration, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Motion (doc. 7) is GRANTED and this action is hereby stayed.

2. The Parties are directed to submit the claims involved in this action

to arbitration pursuant to their agreement.

3. Plaintiff shall file a report on the status of arbitration on March 1,

2011, and the first day of every July, November, and March 
Page 2 of 2

thereafter.

DONE AND ORDERED this first day of December, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv382-WS/MD

SR KELLY, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 6)

docketed January 14, 2011. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be

dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The plaintiff's complaint and this action are DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to prosecute, to comply with an order of the court, and to keep the court informed

of his current address. 

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of February , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cr40-SPM

DAVID STANLEY FISHER,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF GUILTY PLEA

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, and subject to

the Court’s consideration of any Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(e)(2), the plea of guilty of the defendant, DAVID STANLEY FISHER, to

Counts One, Five, and Six of the indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties

shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2010. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:09cr83/LAC

DANNY RAY BARLOW,

 Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there has been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(2), the plea of

guilty of the defendant, DANNY RAY BARLOW, to the three count indictment against

him is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing

as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28 day of September, 2009.

th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### ROBINHOOD TRAILS NEIGHBORS v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

No. 50 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 539.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 April 1980.
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THERESAJAMES, Parent andNextFriend ofE.J., a minor 

### E.J., individually 

### Plaintiffs, 

### v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

### Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) Civil Case No. 12-376 (RJL) ) ) ) ) 

### fmm:ER (June 

# CJ, 2013) (Dkts. ##10, 12) 

### For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion enteredthis ;fd.;of , June 2013, it is hereby 

### ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 

### [Dkt. #12] is 

### GRANTED; and it is further 

### ORDEREDthatplaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 

### [Dkt. #10] is 

### DENIED; and it is further

1ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice. SO ORDERED.

United States DistrictJudge

2
# C_2010225EN.01000101.xml

| 20.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5844 — JP Morgan/RBS Sempra)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 225/01

On 16 June 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5844. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5844. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DEAN DELLINGER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv323/RS-EMT

INTERNATIONAL RARITIES

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave from the deadline for 

filing pretrial motions (Doc. 89). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to his three motions in limine. 

2. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s motions in limine not later than 

noon on July 15, 2011.

3. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to his motion for summary judgment, 

which was not attached to Plaintiff’s motion. 

ORDERED on July 12, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00323-MCR-EMT Document 95 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7731

CLARENCE HUELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION; HENRY

MCMASTER, Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(6:06-cv-02562-HFF)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Huell, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Donald

John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Huell seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying

his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not

timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s final order denying Huell’s timely

filed Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on October 16,

2007. The notice of appeal was filed on November 19, 2007.*

Because Huell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED