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

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES LEE PRITCHETT,

Petitioner, 

vs. Case No. 3:10cv422/RV/CJK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated May 25, 2012. (Doc. 19). The parties have been furnished

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

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have

made a de novo determination of objections filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed

objections thereto, 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.

Case 3:10-cv-00422-RV-CJK Document 20 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. §

2241 (doc. 4) is DENIED and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv422/RV/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00422-RV-CJK Document 20 Filed 07/03/12 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LARRY LEE MORRIS, JR., 

Petitioner, 

vs. Case No. 4:10cv443-SPM/WCS

WALTER A. McNEIL, 

Defendant. 

____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk.

In an order filed January 19, 2011, Petitioner was directed to file a second 

amended petition by February 25, 2011, and was warned of dismissal if he failed to

comply with that order. Doc. 8. To date, no response has been received from the

Petitioner. 

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a

court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.), cert.
Page 2 of 2

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Since Petitioner has failed to comply with an order or to

prosecute this case, this petition should now be dismissed without prejudice. 

Petitioner shall have a 14 day period after service of this report and

recommendation in which to file objections. This will also afford Petitioner a final

opportunity to show good cause for this failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by filing a

motion for reconsideration which will be referred to me by the Clerk.

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 16, 2011.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv443-SPM/WCS
# C_2010184EN.01000201.xml

| 8.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 July 2010

2010/C 184/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2567 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 109,56 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4532 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83190 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6160 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3312 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1010 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,548 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 284,47 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1220 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2318 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9632 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4821 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3311 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7913 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8160 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7480 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 536,73 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,6505 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5169 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,1913 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 408,78 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0459 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,512 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,1503 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,818 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2422 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3773 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 59,1290 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2567

JPY

Japanese yen

109,56

DKK

Danish krone

7,4532

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83190

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6160

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3312

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1010

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,548

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

284,47

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1220

RON

Romanian leu

4,2318

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9632

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4821

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3311

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7913

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8160

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7480

KRW

South Korean won

1 536,73

ZAR

South African rand

9,6505

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5169

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,1913

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 408,78

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0459

PHP

Philippine peso

58,512

RUB

Russian rouble

39,1503

THB

Thai baht

40,818

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2422

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3773

INR

Indian rupee

59,1290

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2009155EN.01001901.xml

| 8.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/19

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 July 2009

2009/C 155/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4019 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4465 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86380 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,9650 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5181 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0565 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,882 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 273,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6971 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3740 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2117 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1593 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7484 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6223 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,8648 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1996 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0420 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 784,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,1837 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5788 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3425 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 374,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9746 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,591 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,0625 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,794 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7321 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,5100 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,6140 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4019

JPY

Japanese yen

133,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4465

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86380

SEK

Swedish krona

10,9650

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5181

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0565

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,882

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

273,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6971

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3740

RON

Romanian leu

4,2117

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1593

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7484

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6223

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,8648

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1996

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0420

KRW

South Korean won

1 784,41

ZAR

South African rand

11,1837

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5788

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3425

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 374,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9746

PHP

Philippine peso

67,591

RUB

Russian rouble

44,0625

THB

Thai baht

47,794

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7321

MXN

Mexican peso

18,5100

INR

Indian rupee

67,6140

---

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

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMES C. PRUETTE, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv277/RS-GRJ

CALHOUN COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) and 

Petitioner’s Objection To Recommendation To Dismiss (Doc. 10). I have considered

Petitioner’s objections de novo.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and is

incorporated in this Order.

2. The relief requested by Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 6) is

granted.

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

 ORDERED on September 12, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00277-RS-GRJ Document 11 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010171EN.01000501.xml

| 30.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 June 2010

2010/C 171/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2198 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 108,31 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4486 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81040 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5241 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3258 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9085 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,753 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 286,76 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1603 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3738 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9303 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4250 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2812 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4958 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7579 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7075 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 484,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3180 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2918 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,1973 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 052,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9692 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,609 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,1300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,564 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,1946 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,6591 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 56,7020 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2198

JPY

Japanese yen

108,31

DKK

Danish krone

7,4486

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81040

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5241

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3258

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9085

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,753

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

286,76

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1603

RON

Romanian leu

4,3738

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9303

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4250

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2812

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4958

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7579

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7075

KRW

South Korean won

1 484,96

ZAR

South African rand

9,3180

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2918

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,1973

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 052,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9692

PHP

Philippine peso

56,609

RUB

Russian rouble

38,1300

THB

Thai baht

39,564

BRL

Brazilian real

2,1946

MXN

Mexican peso

15,6591

INR

Indian rupee

56,7020

---

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

1

Source

---
Exhibit 99(c)


                          Certificate as to Compliance
                          ----------------------------


         I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of Household Finance Corporation
(the "Master Servicer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 3.09 of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 1996 among HFC
Revolving Corporation as Seller, the Master Servicer and Bank One, National
Association, (formerly known as The First National Bank of Chicago) as Trustee
(the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), that:

         1.   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer from January 1
         through December 31, 2002 (the "Year") and of its performance under the
         Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

         2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Master
         Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the
         Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the Year.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 31st day of March, 2003.



                                       /s/ STEVEN H. SMITH
                                       -------------------
                                       Steven H. Smith
                                       Servicing Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

VS CASE NO. 3:10CV379-MCR/EMT

TITAN WASTE SERVICE INC

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to and at the direction of the Court, it is

ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, on behalf of Michael Brooks, and against Defendant

TITAN WASTE SERVICES INC in the total amount of $228,603.75.

 March 10, 2014

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ Sylvia Williams

DATE Deputy Clerk: Sylvia Williams

 

Case 3:10-cv-00379-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. SUTTON.

No. 76 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 161.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 June 1972.
#### STATE v. GRAY

No. 5 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 318.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 March 1980.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

vs. Case No. 3:10cr107/MCR

FRANCISCO JAVIER GUILLIN-BONILLA

_____________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Crim. P.,

and has entered a plea of guilty to Counts I, II, and III of the Indictment. After cautioning and

examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I

determined that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the offenses charged are

supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offenses. 

I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the Defendant be adjudicated

guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: December 9, 2010 /s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

twenty four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A

copy of objections shall be served upon 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. 3:10cr107/MCR
Exhibit








AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. (“ARC”) and RAHUL ROY (“Executive”) agree to enter into this AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment No. 3”) effective as of April 4, 2020 (“Effective Date”). 
RECITALS
WHEREAS, ARC and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement, dated May 1, 2014, as amended and restated as of June 9, 2015 and amended as of May 9, 2016 (collectively, the “Executive Agreement”).  All capitalized terms in this Amendment No. 3 not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Executive Agreement. 

WHEREAS, the parties now wish to amend certain terms of the Executive Agreement as of the Effective Date.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements set forth in this Amendment No. 3, the parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	COMPENSATION.


 A new Subsection 1(a) is added to Section 1 set forth in Appendix B of the Executive Agreement as follows:
“1(a)    Executive agrees that the amount of base salary payable to Executive pursuant to Section 1 shall be voluntarily reduced by thirty-five percent (35%) (“Base Salary Reduction”) effective as of the Effective Date for a period not exceeding three months thereafter (the “Effective Period”).  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this subsection, if Executive’s employment with ARC is terminated by ARC without Cause or by Executive for Good Reason during the Effective Period, any severance benefits payment to Executive under the Executive Agreement shall be calculated based on the amount of Base Salary set forth in Section 1, without taking into account the Base Salary Reduction.” 
Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment No. 3, the Executive Agreement remains in full force and effect without modification.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment No. 3 as of the date first hereinabove set forth. 
	
		
	ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. 
 
 
By:                                                            
    Kumarakulasingam Suriyakumar


Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
	EXECUTIVE 
 
 
By:______________________________
Rahul Roy










1
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 521 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 521

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption to 
  the individual mandate to maintain health coverage for individuals 
    residing in counties with fewer than 2 health insurance issuers 
                     offering plans on an Exchange.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2017

Mr. Amodei (for himself, Mr. Gosar, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. 
  Franks of Arizona, and Mr. Huizenga) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption to 
  the individual mandate to maintain health coverage for individuals 
    residing in counties with fewer than 2 health insurance issuers 
                     offering plans on an Exchange.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protection from Insurance Exchange 
Monopolies Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN HEALTH 
              COVERAGE.

    (a) Exemption for Individuals in Areas With Fewer Than 2 Issuers 
Offering Plans on an Exchange.--Section 5000A(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(6) Individuals in areas with fewer than 2 issuers 
        offering plans on an exchange.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Any applicable individual for 
                any period during a calendar year if there are fewer 
                than 2 health insurance issuers offering qualified 
                health plans on an Exchange for such period in the 
                county in which the applicable individual resides.
                    ``(B) Aggregation rules.--For purposes of 
                subparagraph (A), all health insurance issuers treated 
                as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of 
                section 52, or subsection (m) or (o) of section 414, 
                shall be treated as a single health insurance 
                issuer.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to months beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-9 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-9 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-9 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-9 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6458 JONATHAN IDEMA; PATRICIA DAWN GLOSSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus GRETCHIN ROBINSON; ROBERT H. FOX; DILLARD MARTIN; DELORES R. STEPHEN; TAMARA BARTLEY; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, A THROUGH X, Defendants - Appellees, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-56-5-CT-F) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Jonathan Idema, Patricia Dawn Glosson, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing their complaint. The district court revoked in forma pauperis status that it had previously granted earlier in the proceeding and ordered Appellants to pay the filing fee. The court then dismissed the case when Appellants failed to comply with the fee order. Finding noabuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS****

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-88842 on Form S-8 for Ohio Legacy Corp, the Ohio Legacy Corp Omnibus Stock Option,Stock Ownership and Long Term Incentive Plan, of our report dated February 4, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ohio Legacy Corp as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes inshareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended. 

 

Crowe Chizek and Company LLC 

 

Cleveland, Ohio

February 4, 2004