alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued January 26, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00503-CV

———————————

AIC MANAGEMENT, Appellant

V.

SANDPOINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. AND RANDALL 

MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2014-04767

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, AIC Management, has neither paid the required fees nor established 

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (requiring payment of 

fees in civil cases unless indigent), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); 

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 51.941(a) (Vernon 
2

2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of appeals); Order Regarding 

Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before 

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 

2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). After 

being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately 

respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing 

involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd.
Before the Third Division,

December 30, 1943

No. 49084.

#### Protests 63828-K, etc., of V. W. Davis (Duluth).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the wild rice is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Davis*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 189, C. D. 751), the record in which case was incorporated herein. The claim at 10 percent was therefore sustained as to this item.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

REBECCA ROMERO , Appellant,

v.

ADRIAN BRABHAM , Appellee.

No s . 4D 20

- 2 468 and 4D20

- 2680

[ October 14, 2021 ]

Consolidated a ppeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Maxine Cheesman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015

- DR

- 003902

- XXXX

- MB

.
Rebecca Romero, Manalapan, pro se.

John D. Boykin of Ciklin Lubitz, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , M AY and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TESSEL : 02-3865

FILIPPO : 02-3871

JONES, et al. : 02-3909

HOLMAN, et al. : 02-3918

LAMB : 02-3947

JONES : 02-3956

LARSON : 02-3981

DRENTLAW : 02-4142

DURHAM : 02-4160

SIEGEL, et al. : 02-4178

NELSON, et al. : 02-4202

FOSTER, et al. : 02-4222

SIMINUK, et al. : 02-4251

NITZKO, et al. : 02-4270

MICHALIK, et al. : 02-4888

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

Case 2:02-cv-04222-PBT Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Petrese B. Tucker, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04222-PBT Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 2 of 2
Cooley 

M. Anne Swa nson 

+ 1 202 776 2534 

aswanson@cooley.com 

. January 8, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Applications of AeroVironment, Inc. for Amendment to Exemptions Under Section 

333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0715 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0214 

Exemptions of AeroVironment, Inc. Granted Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform 

Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0715 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0762 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0214 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0330 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On behalf of AeroVironment, Inc. ("AV"), we request that the FAA substitute the undersigned as 

counsel for AV in connection with AV's applications for amendment to exemptions under 

Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act in dockets FAA-2014-0715, filed on December 17,2014, 

and FAA-2015-0214, filed on January 30, 2015. Jonathan Hill, formerly of this firm , has retired 

effective December 31, 2015. 

In addition, we request that the FAA substitute the undersigned as counsel for AV in connection 

with AV's applications for exemption in dockets FAA -2014-0715 granted on April1 2015, FAA2014-762, granted on April 1, 2015, FAA-2015-0214 granted on April 27, 2015 and FAA-2015-

0330, granted on May 11 , 2015. 

The FAA may contact us as follows: 

M. Anne Swanson 

J.G. Harrington 

Cooley LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. NW, SUITE 700. WASHINGTON. DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM 
Cooley 

January 8, 2016 

Page Two 

(202) 776-2534 (Swanson) 

(202) 776-2818 (Harrington) 

aswanson@cooley .com 

jgharrington@cooley.com 

Please inform us if any questions should arise in connection with this request. 

1

__ Ve ly yours, 

~~ J.G. Harrington 

Counsel for AeroVironment, Inc. 

cc: Rick May 

Jake Troutman 

Dean Griffith, Esq. 

Dan Ngo 

126340365 v1 

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM
# C_2018123EN.01000301.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA

(Case C-359/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(1)(a) - Posted workers - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 11(1)(a) - E 101 certificate - Probative value - Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on))

(2018/C 123/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA

Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Other party to the proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, when an institution of a Member State to which workers have been posted makes an application to the institution that issued E 101 certificates for the review and withdrawal of those certificates in the light of evidence, collected in the course of a judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that those certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on, and the issuing institution fails to take that evidence into consideration for the purpose of reviewing the grounds for the issue of those certificates, a national court may, in the context of proceedings brought against persons suspected of having used posted workers ostensibly covered by such certificates, disregard those certificates if, on the basis of that evidence and with due regard to the safeguards inherent in the right to a fair trial which must be granted to those persons, it finds the existence of such fraud.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

1

---
MEMORANDUM

From: Office of Air Qual ity Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

To: EGU NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495)

Date: August, 2015

Subject: Costing Analysis for Partial CCS

Update for final rule

The EPA updated the partial CCS costs using the latest information available from the DOE. Specifically, the EPA used information from “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement: Sensitivity to CO2 Capture Rate in Coal-Fired Power Plants, June 22, 2015 (DOE/NETL2015/1720). The spreadsheet is attached.

Sources of Information

Figure 1 shows the 3 primary sources of informa tion for estimating the cost and performance of technologies for the proposed GHG standards.

Figure 1: Sources of Cost and Performance Information

Document Primary use Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 1, August 2007 (DOE/NETL2007/1281) Baseline technology performance and costs

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy
Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 2, November 2010 (DOE/NETL-2010/1397) Update technology costs

Cost and Performance of PC and IGCC Plants for a Range of Carbon Dioxide Capture, May 27, 2011 (DOE/NETL-2011/1498) Estimate cost and performance of partial CCS

Table 8.2 Cost and Performa nce Characteristics of

N ew Central Station Electricity Generating Technologies, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Early Release (Energy Information Administration) Comparison of relative costs of simple and combined cycle technologies

The 2007 NETL report is the primary source of technol ogy cost and performance data used for the proposal. However, capital, variable , and fixed operating costs and CO 2 transmission, storage, and monitoring (TS&M) costs were up dated using the cost informati on in the 2010 NETL report. To estimate the costs and performance for partial carbon capture and storage (CCS), we used the partial capture costs in the 2011 NETL repor t. The attached Excel file in cludes the detailed calculations.

Costing ApproachThe capital, fixed, and variable cost s are essentially linear in the 2011 NETL report. The partial costing analysis scales these costs linearly with the percent carbon capture. We also scaled the water use, risk premium, net power output, and efficiency using a linear relationship. To estimate the CO 2 TS&M costs, we used a linear fit to NETL partial capture case and adjusted the cost s to match the 90% capture costs. The impact of this is that there is a certain fixed cost for small amounts of capture and the relative costs on a $/ton basis of captured CO 2 decrease with increased levels of capture. Finally, for the pulverized coal case, we removed the 3% climate uncertainty adder entirely for both the partial and full capture

cases.
POT·Osr"·10ll .. blO'l 

RESOLUTION NO, 2012-17 

City of Rhinelander Support Regarding Docket OST-2012-0109 Rhinelander, Wisconsin Airport 

, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RHINELANDER DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 

WHEREAS, The U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Analysis is considering under Docket OST ~20 12~ 

0109 proposal to provide essential air transportation to Rhinelander, Wisconsin. 

WHEREAS, the Sky~ est Airline has a strong history of providing reliable Essential Air Service critical to regions like 

our Northwood Region consisting of notthern Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan served by the 

Rhinelander/Oneida Cou11ty Airport. 

WHEREAS, continued regional growth is greatly influenced ?Y reli.able air service to major airlin~ hubs; and 

WHEREAS, Sky West Airlines will provide the required airline hub support that will support local businesses; and 

WHEREAS, tourism is the Northwoods region's second largest economic sector; and 

WHEREAS, SkyWest Airlines will provide the required airline hub support that will support tourism in the NmthwoOds 

region; and 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Common Council of the City of Rhinelander Does Hereby strongly 

support the SkyWest Airline application to provide Essential Air Services to the Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport. 

CERTIFICATE 

STATE OF WISCONSIN ) 

) ss. 

COUNTY OF ONEIDA) 

I, Valerie, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Rhinelander, do hereby certi:fythatthe foregoing resolution was duly 

adopted at a meeting ofthe Common Council ofthe City of Rhinelander, held at City Hall on the 13th day of August, 

2012 at 6:00 p.m., the vote on the resolution being ~8- Aye and _Q_ Nay. 

Valarie Foley, City Clerk 

City of Rhinelander 

Oneida County, Wiscon'sin 

i ......... l-

(J'l
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 108 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax 

on medical devices. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2017 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. DONNELLY, 

Mr. YOUNG, Mr. CASEY, Mr. TOOMEY, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. ISAKSON, 

and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on medical devices. 

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 ‘‘Medical Device Access 

5 and Innovation Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 32 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subchapter E. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 108 IS

1 (1) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code 

2 is amended by striking the last sentence. 

3 (2) Paragraph (2) of section 6416(b) of such 

4 Code is amended by striking the last sentence. 

5 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sub6 chapters for chapter 32 of such Code is amended by strik7 ing the item related to subchapter E. 

8 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to sales after December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 67752.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., a/c Phoenix Importing Co. *v.*United States,

protest 287216-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plasticpeel baskets similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65775, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE FILEMON HERNANDEZ-ROJAS, 

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-70161

Agency No. A077-101-481

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 23, 2019

**

Before: CALLAHAN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,

***

Judge.

Jose Filemon Hernandez-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of 

International Trade, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

an immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether a conviction 

constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 

1119 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

First, we are not persuaded by the Government’s argument that HernandezRojas failed to sufficiently raise his claim before the BIA. Although we may 

review a final order of removal only if “the alien has exhausted all administrative 

remedies available to the alien as of right,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), the exhaustion 

doctrine is not employed in a formalistic manner and it does not demand perfect 

precision. Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2008). When, as 

here, an issue was clearly raised before the BIA and the BIA decides the issue, that 

issue is exhausted, even if the petitioner makes slightly different or more expansive 

arguments in support of that issue before this court. See Vizcarra-Ayala v. 

Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 873 (9th Cir. 2008).

The BIA did not err in determining that Hernandez-Rojas’ convictions under 

California Penal Code § 647(b) are crimes involving moral turpitude, and therefore 

that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) 

(barring certain exceptions, aliens convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude 

are not eligible for cancellation of removal). We are not persuaded by HernandezRojas’ contention that precedent establishing his convictions are crimes involving 
3

moral turpitude do not control. See Rohit v. Holder, 670 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 

2012) (holding that solicitation of prostitution under California Penal Code 

§647(b) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude).

As a three-judge panel, we lack authority to overrule Rohit. Avagyan v. 

Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 51323.

#### Protest 118034-K of Union Storage & Transfer Co. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the papers disclosing no reason for disturbing the decision of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
No. 55150.

#### Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 139208-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliyee, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 57197.

protests 145109-K, etc. (New York).

#### Amcan Furs, Ltd., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of New York, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Olives, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Foed, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Xixmrsble T. 5L Trizzbble uiret Asa.ist&nt stizt'% :~perin9enuent~~of Publlo Blst:Tuctfo32 i?.u%tln,

Texas ‘Dearsir: 0plnlon Ho,,QLaer

r

aad reeds-as Sollowsr

n Cfm? county be @a&h3 are BT% not oonti.e?;uous to a%

Yd,qsy have been routed to the IJaplesEL& .Scho$l-by the Countr Board of Cass County since 19Z34~~RAd-~hBVe not the opportunity to attend high school in Cass CourGy, If tineAttorney-General wo~&d not rule that these pupils could be transferred by the County Superistend&nt of Cass County to tne Wa~l8s Indepandent District."The Naplas Independent ;ichocl Xotrict needs to apply for salary aid, andwe need theao fifty-twopup3J.s in order to help count up our teachar-oupilload. I will appreciate it if you vjill get an Ittorney-Generalls ruling for zl6on this question." Arttale 2696,Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provLdes the method ror tramferring students frm one distriet 60 anotherwithin the sase c?ouaty.Article 2697, Vernon's Atmotet& Civil Statutes,provides tho,method of tranaferingstudents from a district of one oouuty to a &if&riot of another oounty. Said Article reads as follows;

wAny ohild speoified iti the,preeeUlngartloU, and its portion of the school C&d; lnaybe tranaf8m%d to an adjoiningdietriot in akmotheP Qounty, in the msnner provided in **said artLe3.e.**  It must be aho%& to the county super+ntetendent that the ecrhool

in the distriut inwb.ioQtieh ohlld relMee, on~.aomnzitoC.distame og Soti&unooatro2labis **ad &~.@TQuu~**  **obutaale,,** 

### lo inaa~~8ible ta tmh sh&ldt* (&@a&& ami) '.

& .8, .%

FIRST ASSI%NT ATTORNEY Gf!X?ERAL Lee Shoptaw **Assistant**
Case 2:04-cv-04972-EL Document 7 Filed 11/22/2004 Page 1 of 6

PHILADELPHIA 76ERS L.P. v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 7

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:04-cv-04972-EL Document 7 Filed 11/22/2004 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04972-EL Document 7 Filed 11/22/2004 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04972-EL Document 7 Filed 11/22/2004 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04972-EL Document 7 Filed 11/22/2004 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-04972-EL Document 7 Filed 11/22/2004 Page 6 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-05348-TJR Document 35 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-05348-TJR Document 35 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

July 24, 1950

No. 54570.

#### Chong Kee Jan & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 972129-G, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained as follows: (1). *248Bak hop, lotus nuts, sui sit, yuk chuk, wai san, sar sum, lo hon qua, mok qua, and yuen yuk assessed at 35 percent ad valorem under paragraphs 775 and 752, or at 50 percent under paragraph 774 as vegetables or fruits, prepared, or at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced, stipulated to be the same as the merchandise passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs; (2) wai san, sliced; yuk chuk, sliced; and sar sum, sliced, assessed at 35 percent under paragraph 775 as vegetables, prepared, similar to those the subject of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra,*were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced; (3) kumquats assessed at 35 percent under paragraph 752 as fruits, preserved, the same as those involved in *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342) were held dutiable at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 as oranges; and (4) fish in lard with beans assessed at 35 percent under paragraph 775 as vegetables, prepared, similar to that the subject of Abstract 42516 was held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as non-enumerated manufactured articles.