WASHINGTON, DC  20401

In the Matter of            )
the Appeal of               )
HOROWITZ/RAE BOOK           )      Docket No. GPOBCA 14-98
Jacket No. 431-619          )
Purchase Order 73791        )


On March 30, 1999, pursuant to Rule 31 of the Board Rules, the
Board issued a  Rule to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not be
Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute (Rule to Show Cause),
directing the Appellant to state its reasons for not complying
with the requirements of the Board Rules, and in particular, by
not responding to the Board's request of August 4, 1998, to
report back to the Board with  regard to its bankruptcy status
and its efforts to obtain an attorney.
The Rule to Show Cause directed the Appellant to submit a written
response to the Board within fifteen (15) days from its receipt,
showing such cause as it may have as to why the appeal should not
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.  The Board
sent the Rule to Show Cause by certified mail to the Appellant at
its address of record:
Mr. John Ball
Horowitz/Rae Book Manufacturers, Inc.
300 Fairfield Road
Fairfield, New Jersey  07004-1974

The U.S. Postal Service's certified mail receipt was returned to
the Board showing that the Rule to Show Cause was received by the
Appellant on April 6, 1999.  The Appellant did not respond to the
Rule to Show Cause.
Rule 31 allows the Board to dismiss an appeal whenever the record
discloses, inter alia, that a party has:  (1) failed to file
documents required by the rules; (2) respond to the Board's
notices or correspondence; or (3) otherwise indicates an
intention not to continue the orderly prosecution or defense of
an appeal.  Board Rules, Rule 31.  Based on the foregoing facts,
it is clear to the Board that dismissal is justified in this case
on one or more of those grounds.  That is, the record in this
appeal amply demonstrates that the Appellant has ignored the
Board's rules and directives with respect to notices and
correspondence, and has otherwise indicated an intention not to
continue the orderly prosecution of its appeal.  No other
conclusion is warranted by its failure to respond to the Rule to
Show Cause.  See Rosemark, GPOBCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994), slip
op. at 4, 1994 WL 275076; Bedrock Printing Company, GPOBCA 05-91
(April 10, 1992), slip op. at 5-6 (citing David M. Noe, AGBCA No.
88-155-1, 89-1 BCA  21,560; Leonard V. West, PSBCA No. 1443,
86-3 BCA 19,060).
Accordingly, since the Appellant has not responded to the Rule to
Show Cause and consequently has not made a showing that the
appeal should not be dismissed, the appeal is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to prosecute.
It is so Ordered.

April 22, 1999                     RONALD BERGER
Ad Hoc Chairman