alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

January 11, 1968

No. P68/8.

protests 64/12719-14287, etc. (Chicago).

#### Dowst Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electric motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gamble Vargish & Co., dba Seabury & Co.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 448, C.D. 2834), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
lion. d. SC. uooa, Yareb 14, lDsB# Page 2 

thattimeconferredany general porerof eondmm~tionon 

the C2&ualsaian, and In that Instame they wstrlated the 

graut of power to anith County, Terse. The tegislrtura 

not havlng made an eXprf3ss grant of the power 0T 00~1 

denmatioant.0 the Conunieslon, re oanuotby fmplie8tion 

oonfer that poror upon the Cfnmiesio~ for the oourtm 

bate held that the 8tatutes conferring the power of lmmin0nt domain be Otriotlj cdonStrue& and ii the p0rw iu 

doubtful, it will be reeolted infavorof'thepmpartp 

olmer. 

It is the opiarlon o? th&* apwiaent th8t the 

-doa wee ut hw@ UItheaatp 

forthdrplqodstmdorenrpl-owpt
## 823

**OFFICE OF**  **THE A-ITORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

H~orablo T. 1. mmblo 

## pint A8Si8taw Sate 8ttperlatendent of 

### l’ubllo fnstruotion m8tltt, Texa8 Dear art ulo or l o&u301 bm we4 

### for the

carerully Cea8la8 

### request a8 follau~r

ior the ptwpo8. 

### over whloh **their**

Of Uy 8ChoO1 di8triOt,

**CNlCe88 pre8crfb** 

**UWi8&bl8, may**  **mske 8ale**  **Of 8ay**  **propercy beloa&ttg**  **to 8tia**  8ChoOl ai8criCt, ud apply the plrg(Peeaa CO the pU'Cht48e Of tleCe88w /IOWh%8, **Or t0**  **t& build-**  & 

### or repairlag of mcbeolhou8e8, 

### or place the pm~eeds t~,the Or&it of the available 8Chool fund Of Lhe di8triOt.*lion. 1. 1. ‘PrialtB - Iago 2 

### Th6a b o ve

quoted

l rticlr (2753) 

### l

p plloa

toc o mm on 8ChaO1 districts. 

### 1179. bee il.8. mtttaer h co. v. mwn, 198 3.w.

By vi rtue

0P conwtiLul;tonal rsd *Lawtory proriaatu, the Crwrirsloner** Court 1s rads a aourt of ganoral jitrirdiatiott

for the 68Iabli.8km6iat O? W&48. 21 rexA JW18- imtdatae p. 570.



### "Each **COSMi88iOtWrE ’**  

### Cowt **8hall.r** 

### (I . l . 

### * 3, I, a y 00% a m2 l rt&bli8h, Ohurge aad dir- %OntinlW PUbliC -8 rad hllLbwy8. * . . . 

### "6. **Exeroi8o** 

### 8aneral oeatrol over all -8, hQhuays s ferri.8 aad Bridges in their eoUatie8. YOUam l'88&38UtN~dVi88& -tit i8 th. OptDi6l& Ofthi8d8~~tth&t thr, pFOiWd8 ?MliMti f’mrth8 8&h Of th0 8ahOOi p~$W?ty Of U&&t a- BOh001 Di8trfGt cattzmt lmf~llybbr mtpad& 

### for tb8 b~lldlng or rep8lriee a5 aoumi~ Pod8 ovfw vhlah tha ruEa bU8 Of SWh da8trict lwn8. 

### @tiale 2753, @upfar dlreo%r JWV 

### l uoh pFC+68&8 8-1 be applied or plum%.

YOU'8 very truly 08u88AL OF !?xAn
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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

PAUL J. SHORB, JR.,

 

 Defendants.

Case No. 06-5046M 

 Minute Order

Re: Appointment of Counsel

THIS matter is entered pursuant to the direction of Chief United States Magistrate Judge, J. Kelley

Arnold. A review of the record suggests that the court should review with the defendant his entitlement to

court appointed counsel.

Accordingly, a status hearing regarding counsel for the defendant is scheduled for:

September 18, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. 

The U.S. Attorney is not required to be in attendance.

Entered by Deputy Clerk, /s/Kelly Miller, this 11th day of September, 2006.

Case 3:06-mj-05046-MJB Document 5 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 288 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
S. RES. 288

 Authorizing the printing of the Report of the Task Force on Economic 
                               Sanctions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              October 6 (legislative day, October 2), 1998

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
               the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Authorizing the printing of the Report of the Task Force on Economic 
                               Sanctions.

    Resolved, That the ``Report of the Task Force on Economic 
Sanctions'', be printed as a Senate document, and that there be printed 
300 additional copies of such document for the use of the Task Force on 
Economic Sanctions.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY  PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH 30,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000876400
<NAME>                          STIMSONITE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.000
<CASH>                                            178
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                      809
<INVENTORY>                                    11,812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34,356
<PP&E>                                         33,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                 15,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 70,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          18,618
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           90
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   70,744
<SALES>                                        14,602
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,602
<CGS>                                          10,338
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,880
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,194)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (418)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (776)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (776)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        


</TABLE>
No. 65254.

#### Sopac Transport Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/5165(B) (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
10.3





CONSULTING
AGREEMENT





THIS
AGREEMENT is made as of July
01, 2008,between Organic Alliance, Inc.
(“Company”) and William J.
Gallagher(“Consultant”) and all provisions set forth in this Agreement
shall govern.




1.      SERVICES.  Consultant
agrees to provide financial advisory, Investment relations and certain
administrative services and other services, and in such other capacities and for
such other duties and services as shall from time to time be mutually agreed
upon by Company and Consultant.




2.      RATE OF PAYMENT.
Company agrees to pay Consultant for Services 6,250.00 Six Thousand Two hundred
Fifty Dollarsper month plus expenses.





3.      TERMS FOR SERVICES.
Hours worked at the discretion of Consultant. This agreement will be in effect
beginning the date of signing the consulting agreement and for the following 16
months there after.





4.      CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION. Each party hereto (“Such Party”) shall hold in trust for the
other party hereto (“Such Other Party”), and shall not disclose to any non-party
to the Agreement, any confidential information of Such Other Party. Confidential
information is information which relates to Such Other Party’s research,
development, trade secrets or business affairs, but does not include information
which is generally known or easily ascertainable by non-parties.





Consultant
hereby acknowledges that during the performance of this contract, the Consultant
may learn or receive confidential Company information and therefore Consultant
hereby confirms that all such information relating to the Company’s business
will be kept confidential by the Consultant, except to the extent that such
information is required to be divulged to the Consultant’s clerical or support
staff or associates in order to enable Consultant to perform Consultant’s
contract obligation.





5.    
COMPLETE
AGREEMENT. This agreement contains the entire agreement between the
parties hereto with respect to the matters covered herein. No other agreements,
representations, warranties or other matters, oral or written, purportedly
agreed to or represented by or on behalf of Consultant by any of its employees
or agents, or contained in any sales materials or brochures, shall be deemed to
bind the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. The Company
and Consultant acknowledge that they are entering into this Agreement solely on
the basis of the representations contained herein.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement as of the date
first above written.





Signed
this 1st day of July, 2008.





Organic
      Alliance, Inc.
            ConsultantBy:
      /s/ Tom
      Morrison
              Chairman,
      President, CEO
            /s/
      William J. Gallagher
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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOHN PERKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T ANDERSON et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5160 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND 

 DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this civil rights action be dismissed without prejudice

as the sole claim for relief is by writ of habeas corpus. As detailed by the Magistrate Judge, the

Plaintiff is seeking relief that would entitle him to a speedier release from imprisonment (propriety of

revoking good time credits). Such relief must be filed as a habeas corpus petition.

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons outlined in

the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff may not proceed with a civil rights action

if a ruling in his favor would imply his current confinement is unlawful;

Case 3:06-cv-05160-FDB Document 10 Filed 06/09/06 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for plaintiff, and to the Hon.

J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05160-FDB Document 10 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 1 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 2 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 3 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 4 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 5 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 6 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 7 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 8 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 9 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 10 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 11 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 12 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 13 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 14 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 15 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 16 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 17 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 18 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 19 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 20 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 21 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 22 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 23 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 24 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 25 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 26 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 27 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 28 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 29 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 30 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 31 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 32 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 33 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 34 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 35 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00356-JCC Document 1 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 36 of 36
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21615]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center For Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Research Resource for 
Systematic Reviews of Complementary and Integrative Health (R24 
Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: November 17, 2023.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 
Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Shiyong Huang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural Activities, 
NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20817 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b4853524254555c15534e5a555c7b555253155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4c7dcddcddbdad39adcc1d5dad3f4dadddc9ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21615 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402

(253) 428-3800

Order Granting Mtn. to Extend Time/CR05-5761FDB - 1

U.S. v. Corey Dean Hamilton

Judge Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. CR05-5761FDB ) Plaintiff, )) v. ) ORDER

) COREY DEAN HAMILTON, )) Defendant. ) )

After consideration of the Stipulated Motion For Extension Of Time For Filing Of

Response To Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, the government’s request for an

additional three business days in order to file its response, is hereby GRANTED.

The government’s response to the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence is now

due on December 5, 2005.

 DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Proposed by:

s/ Gregory A. Gruber

Gregory A. Gruber

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05761-BHS Document 25 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22385]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 01/01-0422]


New Canaan Funding Mezzanine V SBIC, LP; Surrender of License of 
Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, as amended, (``Act'') under Section 309 of the Act and the Small 
Business Administration Rules and Regulations under 13 CFR 107.1900 to 
function as a small business investment company under the Small 
Business Investment Company License No. 01/01-0422 issued to New Canaan 
Funding Mezzanine V SBIC, LP, said license is hereby declared null and 
void.

Bailey DeVries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, United 
States Small Business Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-22385 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. NOE GARCIA

- LIMA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50242
D.C. No. 3:17

- cr - 00383

- BEN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018 **
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Noe Garcia

- Lima appeals from the distric t court’s judgment and challenges the 48

- month sentence and 3

- year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 12 91, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3

.

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

# FILED

AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50242

Garcia

- Lima contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his non

- frivolous mitigation arguments and sufficiently explain its substantial upward variance

. The record reflects that the court considered and responded to Garcia

- Lima’s mitigation arguments at the sentencing hearing

. The court made clear that, notwithstanding those arguments, it believed that an above

Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of Garcia

- Lima’ s criminal and immigration histo ry. In particular, the court noted that a sentence higher than Garcia

- Lima’s previous 41

- month sentence for an immigration offense was warranted. The court also discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, noting in particular its concern for de terrence, respect for the law, and protection of the public. The court satisfied its procedural obligations. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 35 6

- 59 (2007) ; United States v. Vanderwe rfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 937

- 38 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Garcia

- Lima also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the Guidelines’ recommendation that no term of supervised release be imposed for a deportable alien. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). The court did not plainly err. See United State s v. Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9 th Cir. 2008)

. The record makes clear that, even if the court h ad explicitly acknowledged the Guidelines provision at issue , it would have imposed the same three

- year term of supervised release given its concerns about Ga rcia

- Lima ’s failure to be deterred3 17

- 50242

and the danger he poses to the public. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5 ; Dallman , 533 F.3d at 762 (no plain error where a defendant can not a show “a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence” a bsent the alleged error).
AFFIRMED.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER TRANSFERRING § 2254 PETITION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL RAY EVANS,

Petitioner,

v.

SANDRA CARTER,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1770-MJP

ORDER TRANSFERRING § 2254

PETITION

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner’s response to Order to Show Cause,

respondent’s reply, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler, United

States Magistrate Judge, any objections thereto, and the balance of the record, does hereby find

and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The case is TRANSFERRED to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the

interests of justice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1631 and Circuit Rule 22-3(a). 

Petitioner is advised that this transfer does not of itself constitute compliance with

Case 2:05-cv-01770-MJP Document 22 Filed 08/02/06 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

ORDER TRANSFERRING § 2254 PETITION

PAGE -2

§ 2244(b)(3) and Circuit Rule 22-3; he must still file a motion for leave to proceed

in the Ninth Circuit and make the showing required by § 2244(b)(2); and

(3) The Clerk is directed to close this case and transfer all original documents to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of

this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent, and to Judge Theiler.

DATED this 1st day of August, 2006.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01770-MJP Document 22 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 59329.

protest 249447-K (New York).

#### Bergen Trading Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
July 30, 1957

No. 61115.

protest 207453-K.

#### Oscar J. Wile & Company *v.*United States,

Protests abandoned June 14,1957. (Not published.) (Initial No. 197588-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.