alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al. : No. 04-3509

(Lexington Insurance Company and :

AIU Insurance Company) :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2012, “Plaintiff General Refractories

Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Lexington Insurance Company

and AIU Insurance Company as to Their Counterclaims of Reformation and Rescission”

(doc. no. 315) is granted. The counterclaims for reformation and rescission asserted by

defendants Lexington Insurance and AIU Insurance Company (doc. no. 284 at 29-37) are

dismissed with prejudice, and their cross-motion (doc. nos. 360, 361 (sealed)) is denied.

A memorandum accompanies this order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edmund V. Ludwig

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 2:04-cv-03509-LFR Document 407 Filed 01/30/12 Page 1 of 1
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 26, 2015 517417

________________________________ GARY L. BUTLER, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: February 9, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________ Gary L. Butler, Ossining, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), for respondent.

__________ McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Milano, J.), entered May 29, 2013, which, among other things, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim. Claimant, a prison inmate, commenced this action on June 23, 2010 by filing and serving a claim alleging damages resulting from a dispute over the appropriate pay rate for his work in the mess hall. Claimant alleged that his claim accrued on March 24, 2010. Defendant answered and asserted the affirmative defense that the claim was untimely. Claimant thereafter moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved to dismiss the claim. The Court of Claims granted the cross motion and determined, among other things, that the claim was untimely. Claimant now appeals.-2- 517417

We affirm. Inasmuch as claimant sought to recover damages stemming from the intentional tort of an officer of defendant, he was obliged "to file and serve, within 90 days of the date of accrual, either a claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim" (Robinson v State of New York, 38 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2007]; see Court of Claims Act § 10 [3-b]; Pizarro v State of New York, 19 AD3d 891, 892 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 717 [2005]). Claimant did not file and serve a notice of intention to file a claim. Moreover, even assuming that the claim accrued on March 24, 2010, rather than earlier, the actual claim was not filed and served in a timely manner. Thus, the Court of Claims properly dismissed this action as untimely (see Robinson v State of New York, 38 AD3d at 1030). Contrary to claimant's contention, there was no indication of "misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of facility officials" that would warrant an estoppel (Rivera v State of New York, 5 AD3d 881, 881 [2004]). The remaining arguments of the parties, to the extent they are not academic in light of the foregoing, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit. Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
No. 52481.

protest 134532-K (New York).

#### Browne-Vintners Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise,

issues, and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it pertains to the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed, not found, is subject to an allowance in duties. The protest was sustained to this extent.
April 23, 2014

Mr. Peter Schleder

Airplus Maintenance GmbH

Flughafen 28

88046 Friedrichshafen, Germany

Dear Mr. Schleder:

This is in response to your February 7, 2014, letter sent to the public docket No.

FAA-2014-0147 petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Airplus 

Maintenance GmbH (Airplus), for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) sections 91.411(b) and 91.413(c). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Airplus to perform altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections 

and ATC transponder tests and inspections on specified aircraft without holding an FAA 

repair station certificate with ratings as required in 14 CFR sections 91.411(b) and 91.413(c).

In your petition you state that although you applied for an FAA Repair Station Certification 3 

years ago, an FAA ban on certificating new foreign repair stations has been in place pending 

issuance of a Transportation Security Administration rule on Repair Station Security. The 

TSA final rule on repair station security was issued on January 13, 2014 (copy enclosed). As 

a result, the FAA is now processing applications for foreign repair station certificates; and 

will not consider a petition while the application is being processed. We will take no further 

action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1554
2
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0077

_________________ IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: CHERYL L. TARBET, f/k/a CHERYL L. SMITH,

Petitioner and Appellee, and RANDALL B. SMITH,

Respondent and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Chery l L. Tarbet, to all counsel of r e cord , and to the Honorable Christopher D. Abbott , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 6 2021

10/06/2021
Case Number: DA 21-0077
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Dmitry Beinus, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to  §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

/s/Dmitry BeinusChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                   May 15, 2007

---
Mr . Josma n Blyth e 62 9 Starboar

dRoad , N W Shallotte , N C 2847 0 Ma y 24,201 0 DMS No . FAA-2010-031 8 r - F "nnT.'TiO M -L/il/'JIur l

t ... . The Honorabl e Isaa

c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Office o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jersey Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g GroundFloor , RoomEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 

## - x ^

Dea r Judg e Benkin , I wil l b e representin g mysel f i n thi s matter . M

y fathe r wil l b e assistin g me . Pleas e hav e all correspondenc e sent

t o hi s address . W

e hav e n o problem s witi

b th e lam e o r plac e o f th e hearing . Mr . Dougla s Blythe 53 6 Medcalf

Driv e S W Sunse t Beach , N C 2846 8 (910)579-1507 - Home & FA X db l vthen?:aiatnic . ne

t Sincerely ,

Josma n Blyth e
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY MARCAVAGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 04-4741

ORDER

AND NOW, on this ___ of January, 2009, the Court having been advised that the parties

in the above-captioned case have reached a settlement agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

AND DECREED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, without

costs, pursuant to the agreement of counsel and Local Rule 41.1(b). 

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mark this case as

CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

Local Rule 41.1(b) states that “whenever in any civil action counsel shall notify the Clerk or the judge to

1

whom the action is assigned that the issues between the parties have been settled, the Clerk shall, upon order of the

judge to whom the case is assigned, enter an order dismissing the action with prejudice, without costs, pursuant to

the agreement of counsel.”

Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 123 Filed 01/27/09 Page 1 of 1
# C_2016475EN.01001001.xml

| 19.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/10

---

Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2016 in Case T-33/15, Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (BIMBO)

(Case C-285/16 P)

(2016/C 475/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 13 October 2016, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. to bear its own costs.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      I, Christine A. Herren, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of
Innotrac Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: May 16, 2005

                                            /s/ Christine A. Herren
                                            -----------------------
                                            Christine A. Herren
                                            Senior Director and Controller
                                            (Principal Financial Officer and
                                            Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

NADIA A. DEDICOVA-KENT ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 04-1482 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC ) 

 and ) 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION ) 

SOLUTIONS, INC. ) 

 and ) 

TRANS UNION, LLC ) 

 and ) 

MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

 O R D E R

AND NOW, this_____day of __________, 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Compel the deposition of Defendant MBNA America Bank, NA’s, corporate 

representative (hereafter “MBNA”), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is 

GRANTED and Defendant MBNA shall, without a protective order or any objection as to 

confidentiality, produce a corporate representative for deposition to testify regarding the 

policies and procedures employed in 2003 and 2004 in handling the investigation of 

consumer disputes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act within twenty (20) days of the 

date of this Order or risk further sanctions upon application to the Court. 

 ___________________ 

 Surrick, J. 

 

 

Case 2:04-cv-01482-RBS Document 34-3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 1
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  M ITCHELL B ARNES -W ALLACE ; M AXWELL B REEN ,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. No. 04-55732 C ITY OF S AN D IEGO , D.C. No.



#  Defendant, CV-00-01726-

NAJ/AJB and
B OY S COUTS OF A MERICA - D ESERT P ACIFIC C OUNCIL ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

 M ITCHELL B ARNES -W ALLACE ; M AXWELL B REEN ; L ORI B ARNES

W ALLACE , Guardian Ad Litem; L YNN B ARNES -W ALLACE , Guardian Ad Litem; M ICHAEL B REEN , No. 04-56167 Guardian Ad Litem; V ALERIE D.C. No. B REEN , Guardian Ad Litem, CV-00-01726-



#  Plaintiffs-Appellants, NAJ/AJB

v. ORDER C ITY OF S AN D IEGO ; B OY S COUTS OF A MERICA - D ESERT P ACIFIC C OUNCIL , Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Filed June 11, 2008

Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and

Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

6625ORDER

The petition of Defendants-Appellees for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The certification order filed in this case on December 18, 2006, is withdrawn. A new certification orderwith accompanying concurrence and dissent is filed contemporaneously with the filing of this order. Subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

The pending petition of defendants-appellees for rehearing en banc is dismissed as moot. No other petitions for panel or en banc hearing have been filed. 6626 B ARNES -W ALLACE v. B OY S COUTS OF A MERICAPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form
10-K filed by Carolina Bank Holdings, Inc. (the Issuer) for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the
information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 24, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Robert T. Braswell                                  
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Robert T. Braswell                                      
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                   
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 24, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ T. Allen Liles                                      
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | T. Allen Liles                                          
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 2 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 3 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 4 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 4 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 5 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 5 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 6 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 6 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 7 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 7 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 8 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 8 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 9 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 9 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 10 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 10 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 11 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 11 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 12 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 12 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 13 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 13 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 14 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 14 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 15 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 15 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 16 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 16 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 17 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 17 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 18 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 18 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 19 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 19 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 20 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 20 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 21 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 21 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 22 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 22 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 23 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 23 of 24
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 135 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 24 of 24
 Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 136 Filed 09/19/06 Page 24 of 24
EXHIBIT 99.2

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted

            Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Trent Oakley, the Principal Financial Officer of Full Circle Registry, Inc.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
         December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



Dated: April 14, 2003



                                                                /s/Trent Oakley
                                                             Name: Trent Oakley
                                              Title: Principal Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TAMIKA WATSON : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner :

of the Social Security Administration : NO. 04-2433

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14 day of September, 2005, after considering the parties’ cross-motions for th

summary judgment, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

David R. Strawbridge and defendant’s objections thereto, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED to the

extent that the matter is remanded for further proceedings;

3. The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED; and

4. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner in accordance with the fourth

sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Furthermore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED reversing

the decision of the Commissioner that denied benefits to Plaintiff Tamika Watson. This case shall be closed

for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

_ s/Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. ________

THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.

Case 2:04-cv-02433-TON Document 30 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017202EN.01001303.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Sicurbau Srl, IGR — Imprese Generali Riunite Srl, Iterga Costruzioni Generali SpA, Pa.Co. — Pacifico Costruzioni SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità Portuale di Napoli, Soa Rina SpA: in the presence of: Pamoter Genova Srl and Others

(Case C-493/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 202/22)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TenFold Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nancy M. Harvey, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Nancy M. Harvey                                                            
|                                                                               
|Nancy M. Harvey President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer



October 29, 2003
No. 65404.

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States,

protests 313391-K/14832, etc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 53438.

protests 141034-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Manufacturing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.