alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS 

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

PAGE -1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KENDALL SEBASTIAN GEORGE, 

Defendant. 

____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. CR06-205-RSM 

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS TO 

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 

OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

 

An evidentiary hearing on supervised release revocation in this case was scheduled 

before me on June 29, 2011. The United States was represented by AUSA Andrew Friedman 

and the defendant by Kristine Costello. The proceedings were digitally recorded. 

Defendant had been sentenced on or about July 13, 2007 by the Honorable Ricardo S. 

Martinez on a charge of Exporting Defense Articles without a License, and sentenced to 30 

months custody, three years supervised release. 

The conditions of supervised release included the standard conditions plus the 

requirements that defendant participate in substance abuse treatment, abstain from alcohol, 

submit to search, pay a fine in the amount of $5,000, and provide access to his financial 
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS 

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

PAGE -2 

information by the probation officer upon request. (Dkt. 41.)

In an application dated March 22, 2011 (Dkt. 43, 44), U.S. Probation Officer Angela M. 

McGlynn alleged the following violation of the conditions of supervised release: 

1. Committing the crime conspiracy to distribute controlled substances on or about 

February 5, 2010 in violation of the standard condition prohibiting the defendant from 

committing any new local, state, or federal crimes. 

Defendant was advised in full as to the charge and as to his constitutional rights. 

Defendant admitted the violation and waived any evidentiary hearing as to whether it 

occurred. (Dkt. 52.) 

I therefore recommend the Court find defendant violated his supervised release as 

alleged in the violation, and that the Court conduct a hearing limited to the issue of disposition. 

The next hearing will be set before Judge Martinez. 

Pending a final determination by the Court, defendant has been released on supervision. 

DATED this 29th day of June , 2011. 

A

Mary Alice Theiler 

United States Magistrate Judge 

cc: District Judge: Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez 

AUSA: Andrew Friedman 

Defendant=s attorney: Kristine Costello 

Probation officer: Angela M. McGlynn
EXHIBIT 31

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

     I, Cecelia Pineda, hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10K-SB of NorthTech
Corporation.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

   a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to NorthTech Corporation, including its
subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within  those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

   c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of
our board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

  a) that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our a
bility to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware of
any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

  b) that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
our management or other employees who have a significant role in
our internal controls.

                               1
<PAGE>


6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report that there were no significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation.


                                NORTHTECH CORPORATION, Registrant

Dated: March 29, 2006       /s/ Cecelia Pineda
                            ---------------------------------------
                            By: Cecelia Pineda, President, Chief
                                Executive Officer, Treasurer,
                                Chief Financial Officer,
                                Principal Accounting Officer and
                                Director


















                                 2
<PAGE>
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 SEATTLE

TROY CARPENTER, ) 

)

 Petitioner, ) No. C06-729-TSZ 

)

 v. )

) ORDER DENYING 

JEFFERY UTTECHT, ) § 2254 HABEAS PETITION

) Respondent. ) _________________________________ )

The Court, having reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

Respondent’s Answer, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Monica J.

Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, finds and Orders as

follows:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. #1) is DENIED; and

this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice; 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel

for respondent, and to the Honorable Monica J. Benton.

DATED this 27th day of December, 2006.

AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00729-TSZ Document 12 Filed 12/27/06 Page 1 of 1
# Official Journal C 208A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.208.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 208A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5414 July 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.208.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 208A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5414 July 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2011/C 208A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/188/10 (grade AD 5) — Interpreters for Bulgarian (BG) — English-language (EN) interpreters — Dutch-language (NL) interpreters — Interpreters for Romanian (RO) — Interpreters for Slovenian (SL) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2011/C 208A/01

Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/188/10 (grade AD 5) — Interpreters for Bulgarian (BG) — English-language (EN) interpreters — Dutch-language (NL) interpreters — Interpreters for Romanian (RO) — Interpreters for Slovenian (SL)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |
| 76 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 82 | |
| 91 | |
| 98 | |
| 114 | (DA) |
| 121 | (DA) |
| 122 | |
| 135 | |
| 140 | (BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV) |
| 142 | |
| 146 | |
| 147 | (EN/IT/MT/SV) |
| 155 | (EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 162 | |
| 169 | (EN) |
| 177 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (BG/RO) |
| 181 | (DA) |
| 183 | (SL) |
| 185 | |
| 193 | (BG/RO) |
| 198 | (CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK) |
| 206 | (CS/ES/LV/MT/SV) |
| 208 | (DE/EN/FR) |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

76

(DE/EN/FR)

82

91

98

114

(DA)

121

(DA)

122

135

140

(BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV)

142

146

147

(EN/IT/MT/SV)

155

(EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

156

157

162

169

(EN)

177

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(BG/RO)

181

(DA)

183

(SL)

185

193

(BG/RO)

198

(CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK)

206

(CS/ES/LV/MT/SV)

208

(DE/EN/FR)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) (Mod. 10/93) Judgment in a Civil Case "

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

LINDA EVANS,

v.

CASE NUMBER: C06-5304RBL

DENNIS BRADDOCK, et al.,

[ % ] Decision by Court. This action came under consideration before the Court. The issues have

been considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s §1983 Claims are

DISMISSED with prejudice.

DATED: March 19, 2007

 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

 /s/ Jean Boring 

(By) Deputy Clerk, Jean Boring

Case 3:06-cv-05304-RBL Document 19 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 1
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 SEATTLE

BADEN SPORTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KABUSHIKI KAISHA MOLTEN (DBA

MOLTEN CORPORATION) AND MOLTEN

U.S.A., INC., 

Defendants.

No. C06-210P

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Baden’s motion to compel Defendants Molten

USA and Molten Corporation (“Molten”) to provide full and complete answers and responses to

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1(a) in Baden’s first set of interrogatories. (Dkt. Nos. 125 & 128.) 

Having considered the parties’ briefs, and all documents submitted in support thereof, the Court

GRANTS Baden’s motion to compel.

Baden’s Interrogatory No. 1(a) asks for the number of sales of basketballs worldwide for each

year from 2000 to present for each basketball model sold by Defendants. In response to Baden’s

motion to compel responses to that interrogatory, Molten filed a “Withdrawal of Defendants

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.” (Dkt. No. 136.) Molten then provided world-wide sales

figures for basketballs that employ the “dual cushion technology.” But Baden also seeks sales figures

for basketballs that employ a “new” technology used by Molten since June 2006. Baden claims that

this “new” technology also infringes its ‘835 patent. These sales figures are relevant to Baden’s

claims. (See Baden’s Reply to Molten’s Answer and Counterclaims, Dkt. No. 131.)

Case 2:06-cv-00210-MJP Document 152 Filed 04/18/07 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 

Defendants are therefore ordered to supplement their response to Interrogatory 1(a) by

providing sales figures for basketballs employing the “new” technology. They must provide Baden

with the supplemented responses within seven (7) calendar days of this order.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: April 18th, 2007.

AMarsha J. Pechman

 United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00210-MJP Document 152 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22914]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. WB 23-54]


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from 
Washington State University (WB23-54--10/9/23) for permission to use 
data from the Board's annual 2000-2021 unmasked Carload Waybill Sample. 
A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under 
docket no. WB23-54.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics 
within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for 
release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.

Eden Besera,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2023-22914 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
STIPULATION FOR ORDER OF 

NATURALIZATION - 1 

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 

615 2nd Ave, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 957-8611 

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 

 Judge Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

MIKHAIL STEPCHUK, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. C06-570RSL 

 

 ORDER REGARDING 

 NATURALIZATION OF PLAINTIFF 

 QIU WEN WANG 

 

This Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties regarding the naturalization 

application of Plaintiff Qiu Wen Wang, A47-181-166, finds that Plaintiff Wang meets all the 

requirements for citizenship and ORDERS the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service to 

naturalize Mr. Wang. 

Dated this 28th day of June, 2006. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge
No. 69313.

#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/17951, etc.

Protests abandoned March 31, 1965.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing denied.
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

RONALD BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN BOVENKAMP,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5150RJB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF

THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND

DISMISSING

COMPLAINT PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

Dkt. 11. The court has considered the relevant documents and the remainder of the file herein.

On March 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a civil rights action, alleging that Mr. Bovenkamp, acting

regional administrator of the West Central Region of the Department of Corrections, violated his rights to

Due Process and Equal Protection when he failed to assign plaintiff a different probation officer. Dkt. 1. 

Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status. The magistrate judge has twice afforded plaintiff the

opportunity to file an amended complaint, after informing plaintiff that he has no constitutional right to

having a certain probation officer assigned to him. Dkt. 6 and 9. Apparently, plaintiff believes that his

current probation officer conducted an illegal search and is therefore biased against him. The issues

regarding the alleged illegal search are not before this court in this proceeding. 

Case 3:06-cv-05150-RJB Document 16 Filed 07/26/06 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

On June 29, 2006, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that

the court dismiss the complaint with prejudice because plaintiff had not complied with the court’s orders

directing him to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 11. 

The court concurs with the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Plaintiff has not alleged facts

sufficient to support either a Due Process or an Equal Protection claim. He has failed to comply with the

court’s orders informing him of the deficiency in his complaint and directing him to file an amended

complaint. The complaint should be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s complaint and cause

of action are DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any

party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 

DATED this 26th day of July, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05150-RJB Document 16 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KALMAN SAMUEL CAGAN-TEUBER, 

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

Intervenor

______________________

2023-1824

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-315H-17-0410-I-1.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 23-1824 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2024
2 CAGAN-TEUBER V. MSPB

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

April 30, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: April 30, 2024

Case: 23-1824 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2024
Before the Third Division,

September 16, 1958

No. 62339.

#### Harvard Clothing Company *v.*United States,

protest 58/1887 (Boston).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mediware. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  May 3, 2011 | /s/ T. Kelly Mann                      |   |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                | T. Kelly MannChief Executive Officer   |   |
|                                |                                   |   |
| Dated:  May 3, 2011       | /s/ Michael Martens                    |   |
|                                | Michael MartensChief Financial Officer |   |
|                                |                                   |   |
#### Richard Lee BEAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gale NORTON, Secretary of Department of Interior, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-3393.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 1, 2005.

Richard Lee Beams, Sunnyside, WA, pro se.

Jackie A. Rapstine, Office of the United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SEYMOUR, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani*770mously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Richard Lee Beams appeals from district court orders that dismissed his Indian Preference Act (IPA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, *see*25 U.S.C. § 472, and entered summary judgment on his discrimination and retaliation claims, 29 U.S.C. § 633a; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.

We review a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. *Radil v. Sanborn Western Camps, Inc.,*384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir.2004). Whether a private right of action exists is a jurisdictional concern, *Hancock v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.,*21 F.3d 373, 374 (10th Cir.1994), which turns on “ ‘whether Congress intended to create the private remedy asserted.’ ” *Southwest Air Ambulance, Inc. v. City of Las Cruces,*268 F.3d 1162, 1169 (10th Cir.2001) *(quoting Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis,*444 U.S. 11, 16, 100 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979)). As for orders granting summary judgment, our review is de novo, *Alexander v. Oklahoma,*382 F.3d 1206, 1215 (10th Cir.2004), to determine whether “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing appellant’s IPA claim and entering summary judgment on appellant’s discrimination and retaliation claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the challenged decisions for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its July 30, 2004, and September 7, 2004 orders.1

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. *770The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1

. We decline to adopt that portion of the district court's July 30, 2004 decision that examines Beams’ IPA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and finds a failure to plead a claim for non-monetary relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. *See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,*523 U.S. 83, 94, 101-02, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998).
Case 3:06-cr-05421-RBL Document 26 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cr-05421-RBL Document 26 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

March 4, 2013

t0225

Order 

March 4, 2013

145938

ANGELA E. DYKES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

BRIAN DYKES,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 145938

COA: 299346

Kent CC: 08-002596-NI

TARLOCHAN SINGH,

Defendant,

and

WEST MICHIGAN CARDIOLOGY, P.C.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

VIVIANO, J., not participating.
No. 62841.

#### Stefano Cavallo, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/9791 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of headboards similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61224, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.