alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 380
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 380.3 General provisions. ( a ) Public Charters may be operated on a one-way or round-trip basis, with no minimum group or contract size. Public Charters may be sold on an air-only basis, or with mandatory or optional land arrangements.
( b ) A U.S. Public Charter operator operating a Public Charter which originates in a foreign country shall not be subject to the requirements of §§ 380.25, 380.28, 380.30 through 380.35.
( c ) The Department declines to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign Public Charter operator which operates a Public Charter originating in a foreign country, but reserves the right to exercise its jurisdiction over any foreign Public Charter operator at any time its finds that such action is in the public interest.
( d ) ( 1 ) An educational institution operating a Public Charter need not comply with the financial security requirements of § 380.34 if each student participant in the charter is enrolled in a formal academic course of study outside the United States, sponsored by or in conjunction with that institution, that is of at least four weeks' duration.
( 2 ) The spouse, children, and parents of a student participant may accompany the participant on a charter operated under this section.
( e ) The Department, upon application or on its own initiative, may waive any of the provision of this part if it finds such action to be in the public interest.
[Docket No. OST-97-2356, 63 FR 28241, May 22, 1998, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019]
-^^RTMENT QF 'sht 

y-Ar. 

Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue ^^i, „.,_ 

SE West Building, Ground Floor Room W12-M'46 '-'^' 

Washington DC, 20590 

;OAKiQnoD~ATir2'833 Alnwick Avenue, Unit 13 

r-,nr:nAT|i''vermore, CA 94551 

/ M A l,7*_October20ii 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Ref: FAR 11 Petition for Exemption. Captain Steven James Randall ATP 2618972 

I am requesting a one-time exemption from the FAR regarding flight instructor renewal—my attendance 

at the flight instructor renewal course (March, 2010, San Mateo Calif.) was cut short by the instructor 

who sent me away"early7clairhing, that I'would notice able to instruct with the CFPi only. 

My friends at AOPA told me that you may have never approved a request for FIRC exemption before; I 

understand that CFls can have a variety of issues as to why they didn't make a FIRC course. I hope you 

will be open minded and judge my situation on its own merits, as, I was at the FIRC, in the appropriate 

timeframe, participating fully, until sent away not of my own actions. 

Note: please see my companion request for exemption from the Chief Counsel interpretation letter 

(T.Grayson , Jan 4, 2010, by Anne Moore & Rebecca MacPherson) regarding FAR 61.195 b & c. 

Upon,your approval of my exemption request, I will take another FIRC (flight instructor refresher course) 

before utilization of my CFI-I. My whole intent has been the desire to teach my private pilot wife 

instrument flying. 

Thank you in advance for your help and assistance. 

Regards, 

Captain Steven J. Randall 

Virgin America A320 Line Captain 

Former Air Wisconsin CRJ-200 APD, Check Airman, Line Captain 

ATP/CFII26I8972
#### § 374a.2 Applicability.

This part shall be applicable to all air carriers as defined herein.

[SPR-53, 37 FR 9388, May 10, 1972, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15939, Apr. 16, 2019]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****BEH Rangeland Allotments(33836) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
** 
**DEIS; MAPS**
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.105/2:R 5-MB-245
Item Number:0082-A-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000930414
 
October 23, 2017
 ****
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1
                                  ------------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation of our report, dated April 10, 2004,
included in this Form 10-KSB in the previously filed Registration Statements of
Legend Mobile, Inc. (formerly PTN Media, Inc.) and subsidiaries on Form S-8
(File No. 333-80771, 333-63174 and 333-112061) and on Form S-3 (File No.
333-51600 and 333-64328)



/s/ Stonefield Josephson, Inc.
------------------------------
STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.
Santa Monica, California
April 14, 2004
§ 29.1381 Instrument lights. The instrument lights must— ( a ) Make each instrument, switch, and other device for which they are provided easily readable; and
( b ) Be installed so that— ( 1 ) Their direct rays are shielded from the pilot's eyes; and
( 2 ) No objectionable reflections are visible to the pilot.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE HAPPY CHILD 

WORLD, INC.

§ No. 25, 2021

§

§ Court Below—Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Consol. C.A. No. 3402 VCS

Submitted: March 26, 2021

Decided: April 14, 2021

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 

the Court that:

(1) On January 25, 2021, Boraam Tanyous filed a pro se notice of appeal 

on behalf of Happy Child World, Inc. from the Court of Chancery’s post-trial 

opinion and order resolving consolidated breach of fiduciary duty and appraisal 

actions.

1

 The Chief Deputy Clerk directed Tanyous to have counsel enter an 

appearance on behalf of Happy Child World by February 19, 2021 or a notice to 

show cause would issue. On February 19, 2021, Tanyous requested an extension 

until March 12, 2021 to find counsel, which the Court granted.

(2) After counsel failed to enter an appearance by March 12, 2021, the 

Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing Tanyous to show cause why this appeal 

1

In re Happy Child World, Inc., 2020 WL 5793156 (Del. Ch. Sept. 29, 2020).
2

should not be dismissed for his failure to have counsel enter an appearance on behalf 

of Happy Child World. In response to the notice to show cause, Tanyous lists the 

Delaware attorneys he unsuccessfully contacted and argues the merits of the appeal.

(3) We conclude that this appeal must be dismissed. “In Delaware, a 

corporation can act before a court only though an agent duly licensed to practice 

law.”2 This Court “may not entertain an appeal by a corporation where the 

corporation is not represented by counsel.”3 No counsel has entered an appearance 

on behalf of Happy Child World in this appeal. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. 

Justice

2 Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., 2009 WL 189862, at *1 (Del. Jan. 12, 2009). 

3 Evergreen Waste Servs. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2011 WL 2601600, at *1 (Del. June 

30, 2011).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

               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 annual report on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Dov
Baharav, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief:

     (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.

Dated: December 28, 2005

/s/ Dov Baharav
---------------------------------------------------------
Dov Baharav
Chief Executive Officer
Amdocs Management Limited
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 439 

To allow Members of Congress to opt out of the Federal Employees Retirement System, and allow Members who opt out of the Federal Employees 

Retirement System to continue to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2019 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To allow Members of Congress to opt out of the Federal 

Employees Retirement System, and allow Members who 

opt out of the Federal Employees Retirement System 

to continue to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘End Plush Retirements 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MAKING FERS OPTIONAL FOR MEMBERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 439 IS

1 (1) AMENDMENT.—Section 8401(20) of title 5, 

2 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, and 

3 who (in the case’’ and all that follows through 

4 ‘‘2004’’. 

5 (2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by 

6 paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to an indi7 vidual who first serves as a Member of the House 

8 of Representatives, including a Delegate or Resident 

9 Commissioner to the Congress, on or after the date 

10 of enactment of this Act. 

11 (b) CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN TSP.— 

12 (1) AMENDMENT.—Section 8401(20) of title 5, 

13 United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), 

14 is further amended— 

15 (A) by striking ‘‘term ‘Member’ has’’ and 

16 inserting the following: ‘‘term ‘Member’— 

17 ‘‘(A) has’’; 

18 (B) by inserting ‘‘, subject to subpara19 graph (B),’’ after ‘‘except that’’; 

20 (C) by adding ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at 

21 the end; and 

22 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

23 ‘‘(B) for purposes of subchapter III, has the 

24 same meaning as provided in section 2106, without 

25 regard to whether the individual elects not to particiVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:20 Feb 21, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S439.IS S439

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 439 IS

1 pate in the Federal Employees’ Retirement Sys2 tem;’’. 

3 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO TSP.—Sec4 tion 8431(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘except as provided in section 

6 8401(20)(B),’’ after ‘‘subchapter,’’. 

7 (3) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made 

8 by this subsection shall apply with respect to an in9 dividual who makes an election described in section 

10 8401(20) of title 5, United States Code, not to par11 ticipate in the Federal Employees’ Retirement Sys12 tem before, on, or after the date of enactment of this 

13 Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit Q

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 1 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 2 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 3 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 4 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 5 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 6 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 7 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 8 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 9 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 10 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 11 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 12 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 13 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 14 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 15 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 16 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 17 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 18 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 19 of 20
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3961-18 Filed:09/21/18 Entered:09/21/18 21:28:34 Desc:

Exhibit Q to Declaration Page 20 of 20
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 July 13, 2011 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM , Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 10-1304 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. LAWRENCE TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division No. 10-1304 Hon. Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge

.

O R D E R Lawrence Taylor pleaded guilty to bank robbery in 2009, which subjected him to sentences both for the instant robbery, and for violating his supervised release in connection with a prior bank robbery. We ordered a lim ited remand because the district court did not clearly appreciate or exercise its discretion in making Taylor’s two sentences consecutive instead of concurrent. The district court has re sponded, clarifying that it did understand at the time of sentencing that it could make the sent ences concurrent or consecutive, and enumerating several convincing reasons for imposing the sent ences consecutively. We invited the parties to respond, and Taylor’s counsel supplied a response stating that in view of the district court’s memorandum, he perceived no non-frivolous argument against the sentencing package. 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 10-1403 Page 2 Counsel nevertheless requested that Taylor be a llowed an additional 30 days to research the issue himself. We never formally granted that request, but nevertheless, well over 30 days have passed with no response from Taylor forthcom ing. Moreover, we agree with defense counsel that the district court’s memorandum shows that the district court appreciated its discretion and exercised it appropriately. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is A FFIRMED
.
List 

### of Pollutants 

## with 

## Updated Health Risk Factors February 

## 2013

7509 2 Methylene Chloride 2 × 10 – 3 kg 

### day

## mg USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R 10 003F 

## 6772 1 Hexachloroethane 4 × 10 – 2 kg 

### day

## mg USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R09 007F 

## 7525 2 Bromoform 4.6 × 10 – 3 kg 

## day mg USEPA 

## OW EPA822 

# R05 011 

## 7527 4 Dichlorobromomethane 3.5 x 10 2 kg 

### day

## mg USEPA 

## OW EPA822 

# R05 011 

### 127 

## 18 4 Tetrachloroethylene 2.1 × 10 – 3 kg 

## day mg USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R08 011F 

## 7934 5 1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 2 × 10 – 1 kg 

### day

## mg USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R09 001F this value 

### was already included in the spreadsheet 

## 8786 5 Pentachlorophenol 4 × 10 – 1 kg 

### day

## mg USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R09 004F 

## 7901 6 Trichloroethylene 4.6 × 10 – 2 kg 

## day mg USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R09 011F 

## 7255 9 

### 4,4 DDE 1.67 × 10 – 1 kg 

## day mg USEPA 

## OW EPA815 

# R08 012 

## 7887 5 1,2 Dichloropropane 3.6 × 10 – 2 kg 

## day mg Cal EPA 

## http 

# www oehha ca gov water

## phg pdf 12dcp f pdf 

## 8768 3 Hexachlorobutadiene 4 × 10 – 2 kg 

### day

## mg USEPA 

## OW EPA822 

# R03 002 

### 124 

## 48 1 Chlorodibromomethane 4.3 x 10 2 kg 

### day

## mg USEPA 

## OW EPA822 

# R05 011 

### 121 

## 14 2 2,4 Dinitrotoluene 0.31 kg 

## day mg Cal EPA 

## http oehha ca gov air

### hot spots 

### pdf TSDNov2002 pdf 

## 5623 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 7 × 10 – 2 kg 

### day

## mg USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R08 005F



## 5712 5 Cyanide 6 × 10 – 4 

# mg kg day USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R08 016F 

## 5889 9 

## GammaBHC Lindane 4.7 × 10 – 3 

# mg kg day USEPA 

### OPP Federal Register 

## 67 59500 59502 

## 9895 3 Nitrobenzene 2 × 10 – 3 

# mg kg day USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R08 004F 

### 156 

## 60 5 1,2 Trans Dichloroethylene 0.02 

# mg kg day USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R09 006F this value 

### was already included in the spreadsheet 

## 6766 3 Chloroform 0.01 

# mg kg day USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R01 001 this value 

### was already included in the spreadsheet 

## 9475 7 Chlorophenoxy Herbicide 2,4

# D 5 × 10 – 3 

# mg kg day USEPA 

### OPP 

## EPA738 

# R 05 002 Didn't find this chemical 

### on spreadsheet 

## 7483 9 Methyl Bromide 2 × 10 – 2 

# mg kg day USEPA 

### OPP PC Code 

### 053201 DP Barcode D304623 

### 108 

## 88 3 Toluene 0.08 

# mg kg day USEPA IRIS 

## EPA635 

# R05 004

CAS Carcinogen CSF Source

CAS 

## Non Carcinogen RfD Source
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Michael John Zarate, * From the 35th District Court

 of Brown County

Trial Court No. CR23534.

Vs. No. 11-17-00259-CR * September 30, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
§ 23.2430 Fuel systems. ( a ) Each fuel system must— ( 1 ) Be designed and arranged to provide independence between multiple fuel storage and supply systems so that failure of any one component in one system will not result in loss of fuel storage or supply of another system;
( 2 ) Be designed and arranged to prevent ignition of the fuel within the system by direct lightning strikes or swept lightning strokes to areas where such occurrences are highly probable, or by corona or streamering at fuel vent outlets;
( 3 ) Provide the fuel necessary to ensure each powerplant and auxiliary power unit functions properly in all likely operating conditions;
( 4 ) Provide the flightcrew with a means to determine the total useable fuel available and provide uninterrupted supply of that fuel when the system is correctly operated, accounting for likely fuel fluctuations;
( 5 ) Provide a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from the airplane;
( 6 ) Be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions and minimize hazards to the occupants during any survivable emergency landing. For level 4 airplanes, failure due to overload of the landing system must be taken into account; and
( 7 ) Prevent hazardous contamination of the fuel supplied to each powerplant and auxiliary power unit.
( b ) Each fuel storage system must— ( 1 ) Withstand the loads under likely operating conditions without failure;
( 2 ) Be isolated from personnel compartments and protected from hazards due to unintended temperature influences;
( 3 ) Be designed to prevent significant loss of stored fuel from any vent system due to fuel transfer between fuel storage or supply systems, or under likely operating conditions;
( 4 ) Provide fuel for at least one-half hour of operation at maximum continuous power or thrust; and
( 5 ) Be capable of jettisoning fuel safely if required for landing.
( c ) Each fuel storage refilling or recharging system must be designed to— ( 1 ) Prevent improper refilling or recharging;
( 2 ) Prevent contamination of the fuel stored during likely operating conditions; and
( 3 ) Prevent the occurrence of any hazard to the airplane or to persons during refilling or recharging.
#### JEFFERSON ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. K-94.

Decided June 3, 1935]

*Mr. Newton K. Foa>*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. George P. MoCabe*and *Adrian C. Humphreys*were on the briefs.

*Messrs. Ja/rnes.A. Cosgrove*and *Jesse R. FiTlmcm,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frank J. Wide-man,*for the defendant.

*532Whalet, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit for the recovery of excise taxes paid by plaintiff during the period from May 19, 1923, to February 26, 1926, on ignition coils manufactured and sold by plaintiff. The case was previously considered by this court at *533which time we held that the ignition coils sold by plaintiff were not subject to excise tax under section 900 of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921 and section 600 of the Revenue Act of 1924. 77 C. Cls. 199. Certiorari was thereafter granted and the decision of this court reversed on the ground of uncertainty as to whether plaintiff bore the burden of the tax sought to be refunded or whether it had passed the tax on to its customers. In remanding the case to this court, the Supreme Court said:

> “The findings leave it uncertain whether the plaintiff in 'making its returns to the revenue officers gave the amount shown on the invoices or 20/21 (later 40/41) of that amount as the selling price; and they also leave it uncertain' on which basis the tax was computed. If by its invoices the plaintiff represented to its purchasers that the amount shown thereon included the tax as well as the selling price, and if it returned that amount less the tax as the selling price, and caused the tax. to be computed on that basis,, it cannot be heard' to say, in the absence of other controlling circumstances of which there is no finding, that it did not collect the tax from the purchasers but itself bore the burden thereof.”

Plaintiff was accordingly, given a new trial at which .additional evidence was submitted, and we have' made special findings on the basis of the entire record. It is clear from the record as now presented that plaintiff, in making returns to the revenue officers, gave 20/21 or 40/41, depending upon the period involved, as the selling price and computed the tax which it now seeks to have refunded upon those fractional amounts of the invoice price. We are also unable to find any controlling circumstances which would permit plaintiff to say that it did not collect the tax from its purchasers but itself bore the burden thereof. We are accordingly of the opinion that this case falls squarely within the principle laid down in *Jefferson Electric Manufacturing Company*v. *United States, supra,*and *Virginia Carolina Rubber Company*v. *The United States,*79 C. Cls. 693, which preclude recovery.

The petition must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*GkeeN, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief Justice,*concur.