Under the circumstances, dismissal was a justifiable sanction for Shelley’s failure to prosecute his case. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the following six relevant factors: (1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.1984). See also Curtis T. Bedwell & Sons, Inc. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 683, 696 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The evaluation of the first Poulis factor
holding a sentencing court is not obligated to expressly weigh on the record each of the factors set out in  3553a holding that ninemonth period not sufficient to weigh in favor of finding closedended continuity holding that not all poulis factors must weigh in favor of dismissal recognizing trial court should not weigh evidence holding upward deviation reasonable where supported by proper factors even though some  3553a factors operated in defendants favor