alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joaquin REYES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50347.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2005.*

Decided July 12, 2005.

David P. Curnow, Esq., United States Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Michelle Betancourt, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LAY,** KOZINSKI, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

On de novo review, we conclude 18 U.S.C. § 111 is not overly broad. The statute prohibits *“forcible assault”*on certain federal officers. *United States v. Abraham,*627 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (emphasis added). It does not restrict protected speech in the form of purely verbal, non-threatening opposition.

We conclude the statute is not vague because “a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would understand what conduct the statute prohibits.” *United States v. Lee,*183 F.3d 1029, 1032 (9th Cir.1999); *see also Abraham,*627 F.2d at 206 (“The language of section 111 is not ambiguous.”).

*534On de novo review, we conclude there was no outrageous government conduct: the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion and was reasonable under the circumstances; Border Patrol Agents Oropeza and Stewart justifiably used deadly force to protect themselves; the interrogation in the hospital was justified based on the officers’ concerns that other people may have been wounded in the shooting and in need of medical care; and the violations of Border Patrol regulations, if there were any, did not demonstrate outrageous conduct in a constitutional sense.

Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise its supervisory powers to dismiss Reyes-Lopez’s indictment as a sanction for official misconduct.

The district court is AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 60219.

protest 260885-K (New York).

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Skimpex, which product is not obtained from any oil, fat, *355or fatty acid described in the Internal Revenue Code, but is derived in part from sperm oil, which is not covered by the statute, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00443-CV

Jeffrey T. Hanson, Appellant

v.

NNN Met Center 15 5, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 6, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 7, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 8, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 10, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 11, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 16, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 18, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 19, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 21, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 22, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 23, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 25, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 26, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 27, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 28, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 29, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 30, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 31, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 32, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 33, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 35, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 36, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 38, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 39, LLC; and NNN 1 & 2 Met Center TIC, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-12-001271, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jeffrey T. Hanson has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal,

stating that the parties have reached a settlement agreement and he no longer wishes to pursue the

appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).
__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: February 11, 2015

2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 475 

Congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 

National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Softball Championship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2007 

Mr. GRIJALVA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association 

Division I Softball Championship. 

Whereas, on June 6, 2007, the University of Arizona Wildcats defeated the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers to win the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women’s College World Series Softball 

Championship, their eighth such title since 1991; 

Whereas Wildcats pitcher Taryne Mowatt set a College World 

Series record for most innings pitched, and was named 

the Most Valuable Player of the qualifying tournament; 

Whereas Wildcats players Kristie Fox, Jenae Leles, and 

Caitlin Lowe were selected for the all-tournament team; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 475 IH 

Whereas the Wildcats, after beginning the 2007 season with 

a losing record, completed the season with a 50–14–1 

record; and 

Whereas Wildcats coach Mike Candrea has taken the Wildcats to the College World Series 19 times in the last 20 

years, winning eight College World Series titles: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) congratulates the University of Arizona 

3 Wildcats on their victory in the National Collegiate 

4 Athletic Association 2007 Division I Women’s Col5 lege World Series Softball Championship; and 

6 (2) recognizes and commends the efforts of the 

7 University of Arizona Wildcats players, coaches, and 

8 support staff in achieving their victory. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0596 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 245

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD h ave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include speci fic requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES NO Explanation:
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Maurice Glover, Petitioner, 

v. 

State of South Carolina, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2015-001686 

Appeal From Sumter County 

R. Ferrell Cothran, Plea Judge 

George C. James, Jr., Post-Conviction Relief Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2017-MO-006 

Submitted March 31, 2017 – Filed April 26, 2017 

DISMISSED 

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of 

Columbia, for Petitioner. 

Attorney General Alan Wilson and Assistant Attorney 

General Julie Amanda Coleman, both of Columbia, for 

Respondent. 
 

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his 

application for post-conviction relief (PCR).1 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied on petitioner's Question 2. Because 

there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that petitioner did 

not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant 

certiorari on petitioner's Question 1, dispense with further briefing, and proceed 

with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 

342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). 

We dismiss this matter pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, after review pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's motion to be relieved is 

granted. 

DISMISSED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur. JAMES, J., 

not participating. 

1

 Counsel for petitioner filed the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Johnson v. State, 294 

S.C. 310, 364 S.E.2d 201 (1988). We remind the Division of Appellate Defense, as we have 

previously, that a Johnson petition is improper where the PCR judge finds an applicant is entitled 

to a belated review of any direct appeal issues. Rule 243(i)(1), SCACR. Despite the erroneous 

filing, we have considered the merits of the petition.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JESSIE CATHARINE NEW,

Petitioner,

v.

FDC SEATAC,

Respondent.

CASE NO. C05-5663RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR:

February 17th, 2006

This 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief has been referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and local Rules MJR 3 and 4.

Petitioner is proceeding pro se in this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus which challenges her

being held at the Sea-Tac Federal Detention Center. The court learned that on October 11th,

2005 Ms. New was transported to Alaska on a warrant. The court entered an order giving

petitioner thirty days to provide a current address. (Dkt. # 3). 

On December 19th, 2005 petitioner filed a motion asking that this action be transferred to a

court in Alaska.. From the pleading it appears petitioner wants the action transferred to “Palmer

Case 3:05-cv-05663-RBL Document 7 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE – 2

Court ,435 South Denali, Palmer AK, 99645-6437. In her motion petitioner states she is under

arrest and that correspondence should be sent to 2210 Tumagain, Apt A, Anchorage, AK.

99515. (Dkt. 3). 

Petitioner does not ask for transfer to the United States District Court of Alaska which is

in Anchorage. Nor does it appear that petitioner has exhausted any issue in state court regarding

her arrest or extradition.

While this action may will belong in an Alaska state court it is petitioner who would need

to file the action or contest her extradition in state court through counsel in her criminal

proceedings. Accordingly the court recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. A proposed order accompanies this report and recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure,

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for

purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit

imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on February 17th,

2006, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 13th day of January, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05663-RBL Document 7 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 67128.

protests 60/16389, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of boiled wool fiber similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 107, C.D. 2320), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DANIEL CLARK SUMMERS

Petitioner, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. 

Case No. 05-5305 FDB

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

Petitioner seeks to have this Court address and correct his sentence pursuant to recent U.S.

Supreme Court opinions. A briefing schedule in this 28 U.S.C. §2255 cause of action is set as

follows: 

(1) Respondent’s Answer is due no later than Friday, August 12, 2005;

(2) Petitioner’s Reply is due Friday, August 26, 2005; 

(3) The clerk shall place this matter on the motion calendar for Monday, August 29,

2005. 

Case 3:05-cv-05305-FDB Document 7 Filed 07/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

DATED this _7th day of July, 2005.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-05305-FDB Document 7 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 67553.

#### Berkley Machine Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/26700, etc. (Boston).

*252Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of envelope-making machines and parts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Keer, Maurer Company*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 205, C.D. 2336), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: marine.milmom@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:20:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Elaine O'Donnell

, 59102-7068
California Environmental Protection Agency AIR RESOURCES BOARD Executive Order S-14-013 WHEREAS, the rules identified in Enclosure A have been adopted or amended by the following air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts) : Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Butte County Air Quality Management District Feather River Air Quality Management District Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District South Coast Air Quality Management District WHEREAS , the districts are authorized by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) section 40001 to adopt and enforce the rules identified in Enclosure A; WHEREAS, the rules have been submitted to the Air Resources Board (ARB) for inclusion in the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) as a reasonably available control measures for limiting emissions of air pollutants within the districts; WHEREAS, ARB has determined that these rules are necessary to meet requirements ofthe federal Clean AirAct; and WHEREAS, ARB is authorized by H&SC sections 39601 , 39602, and 41650 through 41652 to adopt district rules as revisions to the SIP. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that ARB hereby adopts the districts' rules identified in Enclosure A as revisions to the SIP. I certify, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1 02(f), that the rules identified in Enclosure A were adopted or amended after notice and public hearings as required by 40 CFR 51

.102(a) and 51.1 02(d)

. Executed in Sacramento, California,this 

# & <-k day of 

## Mv.e.hltuC, 2014.

Execut1ve Off1cer
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------



                      CEO AND CFO 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  ITEC  Attractions,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Paul M.  Bluto,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company, 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; and

              (2) The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
              all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of
              operations of the Company.

/s/  Paul M. Bluto
------------------
Paul M. Bluto
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2004
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICKY A. BEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C05-1938-MJP-JPD

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights action against the City of Federal Way and two officers of the Federal Way Police

Department. This matter comes before the Court sua sponte upon reference by the Honorable

Marsha J. Pechman. Dkt. No. 42. After careful consideration of the governing law and

balance of the record, the Court ORDERS that counsel be appointed for plaintiff in this case.

No constitutional right to counsel exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case unless

the plaintiff may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dept. of

Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the

Court has the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are proceeding IFP. 

United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court

will appoint counsel only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

Case 2:05-cv-01938-JPD Document 43 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

PAGE - 2

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn,

789 F.2d at 1331 (internal quotations omitted). These factors must be viewed together before

reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id. 

 Because plaintiff has prevailed against Officers Doug Laird and Heather Castro at the

summary adjudication stage, see Dkt. No. 41, appointment of counsel is appropriate.

The Clerk is directed to appoint counsel and to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff,

counsel for defendants, and the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman. In light of this Order, the

deadline for the Joint Pretrial Statement is STRICKEN and will be reset by the Court after

counsel has been appointed. 

DATED this 29th day of November, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01938-JPD Document 43 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CLINTON HECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK STERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5030 RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Dkt. # 35) and for default judgment (Dkt.

# 38) are DENIED; and 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for defendants

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 15th day of August, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05030-RJB Document 59 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 59232.

protest 252685-K (New York).

#### Zaloom Bros. Co., Transferee, and Hensel Bruckman & Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of 223 bags of shelled filberts assessed on a dutiable net weight of 43,378 pounds and that the correct dutiable net weight was 42,895 pounds. In accordance with stipulation of counsel, the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry on the basis of 42,895 pounds and to refund all duties taken in excess.