alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-175-RS-GRJ

BAY COUNTY and GREG PEEL,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

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

No objections have been filed. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 

approved and incorporated in this Order.

2. The case is DISMISSED for failure to comply with an order of 

the Court and for failure to prosecute. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the case.

ORDERED on December 28, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00175-RS-GRJ Document 9 Filed 12/28/11 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

I, Nomfundo Vuyiswa Lila Qangule, the Chief Financial Officer of Harmony Gold
Mining Company Limited, certify that:

1     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Harmony Gold Mining
      Company Limited;

2     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
      of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;

3     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
      the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4     The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and
      have:

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

(b)   [Reserved]

(c)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)   Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual
      report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5     The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
      process, summarise and report financial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: November 2, 2005

/s/ Nomfundo Vuyiswa Lila Qangule
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
# C_2010092EN.01001001.xml

| 10.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 April 2010

2010/C 92/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3384 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,34 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4430 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87200 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6941 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4364 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9365 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,232 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 267,70 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7064 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8770 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1423 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9969 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4378 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3466 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3839 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8798 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8627 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 496,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7415 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1331 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2618 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 091,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2695 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,785 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,2025 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,150 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3752 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3178 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 59,2710 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3384

JPY

Japanese yen

125,34

DKK

Danish krone

7,4430

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87200

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6941

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4364

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9365

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,232

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

267,70

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7064

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8770

RON

Romanian leu

4,1423

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9969

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4378

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3466

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3839

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8798

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8627

KRW

South Korean won

1 496,50

ZAR

South African rand

9,7415

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1331

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2618

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 091,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2695

PHP

Philippine peso

59,785

RUB

Russian rouble

39,2025

THB

Thai baht

43,150

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3752

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3178

INR

Indian rupee

59,2710

---

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

1

Source

---
Exhibit 99.2



                        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 Monarch Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending July 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marshall Chadwell, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to and for purposes of 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.


/s/   Marshall Chadwell
-------------------------------
Marshall Chadwell
Chief Financial Officer
September 16, 2002
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TIMOTHY KELLEY,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00464-MP -WCS

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, recommending that this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be summarily dismissed. The

time for filing objections has passed, and none have been filed. The Court agrees that petitioner

(1) should have included the claims in this case in an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to directly

attack his two prior state convictions; or (2) should have amended his previously filed motion

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the use of the convictions to enhance his federal sentence in

his federal case, to include the current claims. Bringing them under a separate § 2241 petition is

improper. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, and the Clerk is directed to

close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00464-MP-WCS Document 7 Filed 04/22/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010292EN.01000201.xml

| 28.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 October 2010

2010/C 292/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3803 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4585 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87235 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3317 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3639 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1450 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,663 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 275,04 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9501 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2762 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9834 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4194 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4210 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7096 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8500 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7974 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 561,75 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7120 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2212 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3452 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 340,46 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2960 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,646 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,3172 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,402 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3546 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,1847 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 61,4720 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3803

JPY

Japanese yen

112,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,4585

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87235

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3317

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3639

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1450

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,663

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

275,04

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9501

RON

Romanian leu

4,2762

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9834

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4194

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4210

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7096

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8500

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7974

KRW

South Korean won

1 561,75

ZAR

South African rand

9,7120

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2212

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3452

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 340,46

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2960

PHP

Philippine peso

59,646

RUB

Russian rouble

42,3172

THB

Thai baht

41,402

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3546

MXN

Mexican peso

17,1847

INR

Indian rupee

61,4720

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2011172EN.01001401.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6149 — Suntory/Castel/GMdF/Savour Club/Maaf Subsidiaries)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 172/02

On 31 March 2011, 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 32011M6149. 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 32011M6149. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ERIC JERELL WILSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-01-983; CA-04-22509-2) Submitted: October 17, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Jerell Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume the date appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The earliest date on the certificate of service was not attested to by a declaration under penalty of perjury or a notarized statement, and the evidence of the date of mailing and receipt by the district court suggests a date of delivery to the prison mailbox later than the date on the document. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Eric Jerell Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 judgment was entered on the docket on April 7, 2005. The notice of appeal, postmarked June 21, 2005, was received by the district court on June 24, 2005. * Because Wilson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an- 3 - extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EUGENE B. EDWARDS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv243/LAC/CJK

CHRISTOPHER GRACE, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated February 21, 2013. (Doc. 20). 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). 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.

2. This cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with orders of the court. 
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27 day of March, 2013.

th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:11cv243LAC/CJK
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL JEROME LITTLES (#047123),

a/k/a MICHAEL JEROME LITTLE,

a/k/a MICHAEL LITTLE, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv265/RV/EMT

EDWIN BUSS,

Defendant.

____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated July 11, 2011 (Doc. 8). Plaintiff 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). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed

objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto

timely filed, 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.

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s initiating a new cause of action accompanied by payment of the $350.00

filing fee in its entirety.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2011.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00265-RV-EMT Document 10 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

EDUARDO FIGUEROA-NEGRON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00025-MP-GRJ

BARACK HUSAN OBAMA,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint for

“violation of human rights” against President Obama complaining about conditions of

confinement at his current place of incarceration, Glades Correctional Institution. (Doc.

1.) Specifically, Plaintiff complains that he gets wet during rainy weather because there

are no covered walkways at the institution and that he is not provided “long johns”

during freezing temperatures. Id. Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief, i.e. that he be

provided covered walkways and long johns. 

Although there is absolutely no legal basis for suing the President of the United

States for conditions in a prison administered by the Florida Department of Corrections

– rather than dismissing the case or granting Plaintiff leave to name as defendants the

persons in charge of the facility where Plaintiff is currently held – the proper course of

action is to transfer this case to the appropriate district where Plaintiff is being held.

While Plaintiff identifies a number of state institutions in the factual section of the

complaint – some of which are in the Northern District of Florida -- the only persons who
Page 2 of 2

could afford Plaintiff the injunctive relief he seeks are persons at Glades Correctional

Institution. Because Glades CI is in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern

District of Florida, proper venue is in the Southern District of Florida. Accordingly,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) this case should be transferred to the West Palm

Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida. The court there can then determine

whether Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend his complaint to name as

defendants the correct parties. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

That pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) this case should be transferred to the West

Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 17 day of February, 2011.

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), 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: 1:11-cv-00025-MP-GRJ
Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 1 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 2 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 3 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 4 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 5 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 6 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 7 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 8 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 9 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 10 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 11 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 12 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 13 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 14 of 15

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK   Document 228   Filed 05/10/13   Page 15 of 15
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RAY JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv162-RH/WCS

WALTER McNEIL et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

recommendation, ECF No. 5, and the objections, ECF No. 8 I have reviewed de

novo the issues raised by the objections. 

As noted in the report and recommendation, the plaintiff has at least three

“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and has not alleged that he is in imminent

danger of serious physical injury. The objections do not—and could not

reasonably—deny this. The plaintiff therefore cannot proceed in forma pauperis. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Case 4:11-cv-00162-RH-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

opinion. The plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion, ECF No. 2, is DENIED. The

clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed without prejudice.” 

The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on June 15, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge 

Case No: 4:11cv162-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00162-RH-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/16/11 Page 2 of 2
#### HARRISON v. LEWIS

No. 146 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 26.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 31 August 1972.