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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-20414

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JAMES WIESE, ILIR DOKAJ, and

TOM GJOKAJ,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

Before the court are Defendants’ motions for acquittal, to which the government has

responded. All three Defendants were charged in Count 1 with conspiracy to commit federal

crimes (bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering); in Count 2 with bank fraud, aiding and

abetting; and in Counts 3 through 9 with wire fraud, aiding and abetting. James Wiese was

charged in Count 10 with money laundering. After a trial, the jury reached a partial verdict on

June 22, 2011. The jury found Tom Gjokaj guilty of bank fraud, aiding and abetting (Count 2),

acquitted all three defendants on the wire fraud counts (Counts 3 through 9), and were unable to

reach a unanimous verdict on any of the remaining charges.

Defendants contend that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the charges

against them. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, a defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal if the

government’s evidence is “insufficient to sustain a conviction. . . .” Id. The relevant inquiry is

“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational

Case 5:09-cr-20414-JCO-MKM ECF No. 181, PageID.1083 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 2
-2-

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original). 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the court is satisfied

a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a

reasonable doubt, including the essential elements of the count upon which Defendant Gjokaj

was convicted. See Govt. Resp. at 4-5 (Docket No. 149).

Defendant Gjokaj also argues that he was prejudiced because he was not permitted to

introduce evidence of the complicity of mortgage broker John Veraldi. Given the evidence

against Mr. Gjokaj, including that he allegedly submitted 23 false loan applications, it is not

clear to the court how Veraldi’s alleged involvement in the scheme would serve to exculpate him

or assist his cause. The jury’s verdict against Mr. Gjokaj on Count 2 is not against the weight of

the evidence and a new trial is not warranted. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33; United States v. Hughes,

505 F.3d 578, 593 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Generally, such motions are granted only ‘in the

extraordinary circumstance where the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.’”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motions for acquittal are

DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: January 25, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on this date, January 25, 2012, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

Case 5:09-cr-20414-JCO-MKM ECF No. 181, PageID.1084 Filed 01/25/12 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JOE L. DAWSON, CONRAD C. COX, MARY R. COX, 

Trustees of the Conrad C. Cox Trust No. 1 and the 

Mary R. Cox Trust No. 1, LLOYD E. EDGETT, G&M 

PROPERTIES, LP, SHAWN GUINN, ALAN 

WOODSIDE, SHERRY WOODSIDE, Trustees of the 

Shirley Kats Revocable Trust, DEREK KATS, Trustee of the Derek Kats Revocable Trust, JOHN W. 

MATHES, JR., executor of the Estate of Rosemary 

L. Mathes, DUANE R. MCEWEN, DARLENE 

MCEWEN, CAROL K. ROSS, KAY L. LEE, Trustees 

of the Carol K. Ross Trust No. 1, LISA J. 

SONSTHAGEN, executor of the Estate of Linda J. 

Tomasch, JOHN E. BREMER, DAVID G. BREMER, 

IRIS L. SMITH, CAROL CAMPBELL, Trustees of the 

Larry L. Smith and Iris L. Smith Revocable Living 

Trust Dated 7/17/07, JASON DIAL, TRAVIS DIAL, M. 

LEE JUENEMANN, ANGELA JUENEMANN, Trustees of the M. Lee Juenemann Living Trust and Angela Juenemann Living Trust,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________

2023-1923, 2023-1927, 2023-1971

______________________

Case: 23-1923 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 08/17/2023
2 DAWSON v. US

Appeals from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-01268-AOB, Judge Armando O. 

Bonilla.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ unopposed motions

to voluntarily dismiss their respective above-captioned appeals, pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the parties’ agreement as to the 

allocation of costs,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motions are granted. The appeals are dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 17, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 17, 2023

Case: 23-1923 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 08/17/2023
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 0 0 219

- C V

Style: Anne Moreland

v

. Suri Dorai

Date motion filed * : August 29 , 201 4

Type of motion: Motion by Non

- Texas Pro Se Appellant Who Resides Outside of T exas for Permission to

Participate in Appellate Proceeding

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 G ranted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.1(b) ( “ A party not represented by counsel must sign any document that the party files and

g ive the party’s mailing address, telephone number, fax number, if any, and email address

. ”).

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: September 16, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K
FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,589
<SECURITIES>                                    18,219
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,840
<INVENTORY>                                     10,899
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,437
<PP&E>                                          30,840
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,294
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,192
<SALES>                                        110,404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,404
<CGS>                                           32,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,990
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,945)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,346)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)


</TABLE>
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 551

For the relief of Oscar Salas-Velazquez.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Oscar Salas-Velazquez.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR DISAPPROVAL OF

4 REQUESTS FOR CLASSIFICATION AND AD5 JUSTMENT OF STATUS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 204(c) of

7 the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney Gen8 eral may not disapprove a petition for classification of

9 Oscar Salas-Velazquez under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of

10 such Act, or an application for adjustment of the status

11 of Oscar Salas-Velazquez under section 245 of such Act,

12 on any ground relating to a determination that the mar-
2

•HR 551 IH

1 riage of Oscar Salas-Velazquez and Jennifer Christine

2 Brady was entered into for the purpose of evading the im3 migration laws.

4 (b) WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY.—Notwithstanding

5 section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality

6 Act, Oscar Salas-Velazquez may not be considered to be

7 within a class of excludable aliens on any ground relating

8 to a determination that the marriage of Oscar Salas9 Velazquez and Jennifer Christine Brady was entered into

10 for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.

Æ
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PharMerica Corporation (the Corporation) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory S. Weishar, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Corporation.



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gregory S. Weishar                                                  
|Gregory S. Weishar Chief Executive Officer and Director October 30, 2008
#### Albert J. Sprague, Respondent, v. Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

—-Motion denied, without costs. Present—Hirschberg, P. J., Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ. ,
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 11, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 11, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0312. JENNY BUTLER v. MARK BUTLER, COMMISSIONER OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, STATE OF GEORGIA et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2020SUCA239
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RUTILIO MENJIVAR MENJIVAR, 

Petitioner, 

Case No. 09-13617

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of 

Homeland Security; JOHN MORTON, Director,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and 

REBECCA ADDUCCI, Acting Director, Detroit

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Respondents. 

 /

ORDER

On October 2, 2009, the Court issued Petitioner an order to show cause, in which Petitioner

was ordered to respond and establish this Court’s jurisdiction over his petition. In lieu of a direct

response to the Court’s order, Petitioner has filed a “Motion to Dismiss” [dkt 4], wherein Petitioner

advises the Court that the parties have resolved the issues in this matter, and he requests that the

Court dismiss the case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s order to show cause is

WITHDRAWN; that Petitioner’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and that this case is

DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 15, 2009

Case 2:09-cv-13617-LPZ-MAR Document 5 Filed 10/15/09 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on October 15, 2009.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

Case 2:09-cv-13617-LPZ-MAR Document 5 Filed 10/15/09 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mary H. Cunningham and Others, and Another, Respondents, v. Thomas L. Feitner and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants. (Taxes *914of 1900.)

Motion denied, without costs. Present —- Hirschherg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, each of the undersigned, Lawrence J. LeBon, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John LeBlanc,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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: November 12, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Lawrence J. LeBon, III                       
|                        |  |     |  | Lawrence J. LeBon, III                           
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 12, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ John LeBlanc                                 
|                        |  |     |  | John LeBlanc                                     
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
has been provided to Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



32
ACCEPTED01-15-00895-CVFIRST COURT OF APPEALSHOUSTON, TEXAS11/10/2015 1:20:21 PMCHRISTOPHER PRINECLERK
#### Adolph Gubner v. George McClellan.

Motion denied on terms stated in order.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-24669, 33-93540, 333-51623, 333-93923, 333-83781, 333-75704, and 333-60436
of Summit Properties Inc. on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-88202,
333-78, and 333-79897 of Summit Properties Inc. on Form S-8, of our report dated
January 30, 2003 (except for the eleventh paragraph of Note 8 and Note 18, as to
which the date is March 5, 2003) which report expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, on January 1, 2002, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Summit Properties Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2002.


/S/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
March 14, 2003
Charlotte, North Carolina
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 1 3 ,

20 12

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00154

- CV

____________ GALP SIERRA VISTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and AMERICAN

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC , Appellant s

V.

PENNY HERRING , Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008

- 70290



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment signed January 13, 2012 . On March 7
, 20 12
, appellant s filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Seymore, Boyce, and Jamison.
#### Sylvestre Palomo v. State.

No. 25,846.

May 7, 1952.

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) June 18, 1952.

Hon. McCollum Burnett, Judge Presiding.

A. A. *Garza*and *Joe Burkett,*San Antonio, for appellant.

*Austin F. Anderson,*Criminal District Attorney, *James C. Onion,*Assistant Criminal District Attorney, San Antonio, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault upon an officer; the punishment, one year in jail and a fine of $500.00.

Appellant plead guilty in the court below without the intervention of a jury.

Appellant here contends that the punishment is cruel and unusual and that the trial court abused his discretion when he assessed such punishment without hearing evidence.

Article 518, C. C. P., reads as follows:

> “A plea of guilty in a misdemeanor case may be made either by the defendant or his counsel in open court. In such case, the *443defendant or his counsel may waive a jury, and the punishment may be assessed by the court, either upon or without evidence, at the discretion of the court.”

In Ex parte Bostick, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 411, 196 S. W. 531; Burton v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 334, 16 S. W. (2d) 828, and Ex parte Clinnard, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 460, 169 S. W. (2d) 181, we held that, in a misdemeanor case where the defendant enters a plea of guilty, it is not necessary to introduce evidence showing the guilt of the defendant.

It has long been the holding of this Court that “when the punishment assessed is within the limits prescribed by law, it is not ‘excessive/ and courts cannot remedy the grievance, even though of opinion that the discretion of the jury was not judiciously exercised.” Brown v. State, 16 Tex. 123.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

          In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Scott Crump, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

          (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: March   14, 2006 | By:    | /s/ S. Scott   Crump                                                        |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |  

 

S. Scott   Crump

 

 

Chief   Executive Officer |
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William A. Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,411.

First District, Second Division.

September 27, 1966.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook

County, of Chicago (Marshall A. Patner, Frederick F. Cohn and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Kenneth L. Gillis, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in full.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-24669, 33-93540, 333-51623, 333-93923 and 333-83781 on Form S-3, and
Registration Statement Nos. 33-88202, 333-78, and 333-79897 on Form S-8 of
Summit Properties Inc., of our report dated January 20, 2000, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of of Summit Properties Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
March 13, 2000
NO. 07-01-0094-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 27, 2001

	______________________________

	KELLY GREEN SEEDS, INC., APPELLANT

	V.

	PAUL DANIEL AND BOBBY DANIEL, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY;

	NO. 3889H; HONORABLE RON ENNS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	DISMISSAL

	Appellant Kelly Green Seeds, Inc. perfected this appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellees Paul Daniel and Bobby Daniel.  On September 20, 2001, all parties filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice based on a settlement agreement with costs to be assessed against the party incurring them.  We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

	Without passing on the merits of the case, the motion is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).  Having dismissed the appeal at the request of all parties, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Don H. Reavis

						    	     Justice

Do not publish.
#### SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carter H. HARRISON, Individually and as Collector of Internal Revenue for the First Collection District of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6546.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 23, 1938.

Charles Lederer, Sigmund Livingston, and Bert L. Klooster, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

M. L. Igoe, U. S. Atty., of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On'motion of counsel for appellant, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
#### C. P. KIMBLE v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 1700.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 5, 1938.

R. Emmett Stewart, of Muskogee, Okl., for appellant.

Cleon A. Summers, U. S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl., for appellee.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs, for failure to prosecute.