alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 169/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 169 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4921 July 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 169

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4921 July 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 169/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 169/2 | Schedule of public holidays for 2007 | 2 |
| 2006/C 169/3 | Schedule of public holidays for 2008 | 3 |
| 2006/C 169/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4266 — Atel Energia/Azienda Energetica — Etschwerke/Energ.IT) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 169/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 169/2

Schedule of public holidays for 2007

2

2006/C 169/3

Schedule of public holidays for 2008

3

2006/C 169/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4266 — Atel Energia/Azienda Energetica — Etschwerke/Energ.IT) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 34-3 Filed 03/12/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 34-3 Filed 03/12/2003 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

ISAISA SANCHEZ 

USM#59092-066 

CRIMINAL NO. 05-123-1 

ORDER 

AND NOW this / /~ day of ~015, after the Defendant 

Isaisa Sanchez expressed in writing that he rejects the Committee's1 proposed reduction 

agreement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines, reducing his term of imprisonment to 292 months, it is hereby ORDERED that the 

order dated August 9, 2015 reducing Mr. Sanchez's sentence to 299 months is VACATED. 

BY THE COURT: 

1 The Committee is comprised of members of the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, the United States Attorney's Office and the United States Probation Office. 

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 800 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 1
rtsp://multimedia.mcpa.virginia.edu/911/hearing10/2004041402_low.rm
Before the Second Division,

April 6, 1955

No. 58933.

protest 228939-K (Philadelphia).

#### Keer, Maurer Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ingots of remelted aluminum scrap and that it is a nonferrous metal scrap, not ores nor concentrates, nor virgin nor crude metal; that said scrap was imported to be used in remanufacture by melting; that, after importation, it was melted and manufactured into aluminum ingots; and that there had been compliance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
Before the First Division,

January 29, 1951

No. 55170.

#### Eitinger Bead Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 166714-K and 166717-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of certain gold- and silver-colored beads similar in all mate*346rial respects to those the subject of Abstract 54251, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TYRA R. FREEMAN : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : No. 05-2078

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART :

Commissioner of Social Security :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (Document No. 10), the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(Document No. 11), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Thomas J. Rueter (Document No. 13), and after a thorough and independent review of the

record, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The MagistrateJudge’s Report is APPROVED and his Recommendation that

this case be remanded is ADOPTED;

2. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; 

3. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; 

4. The decision of Commissioner of Social Security is VACATED and this case

is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation;

and,

5. JUDGEMENT IS ENTERED in favor of the plaintiff and against the 

defendant.

 s/ Timothy J. Savage 

 TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:05-cv-02078-TJS Document 14 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 77489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25006]



[[Page 77487]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 216

November 9, 2023

Part III





The President





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



Notice of November 7, 2023--Continuation of the National Emergency With 
Respect to Iran


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 77489]]

                Notice of November 7, 2023

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to Iran

                On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the 
                President declared a national emergency with respect to 
                Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
                Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and took related 
                steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat 
                to the national security, foreign policy, and economy 
                of the United States constituted by the situation in 
                Iran.

                Our relations with Iran have not yet normalized, and 
                the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, 
                dated January 19, 1981, is ongoing. For this reason, 
                the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, 
                and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that 
                emergency, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 
                2023. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of 
                the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 
                continuing for 1 year the national emergency with 
                respect to Iran declared in Executive Order 12170.

                The emergency declared by Executive Order 12170 is 
                distinct from the emergency declared in Executive Order 
                12957 on March 15, 1995. This renewal, therefore, is 
                distinct from the emergency renewal of March 10, 2023.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    November 7, 2023.

[FR Doc. 2023-25006
Filed 11-8-23; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3395-F4-P
No. 61801.

#### Sam Muenzer & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 310575-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
December 31, 2023

INFORMATIONAL NOTICE TO COMPANIES REPORTING TO THE TREASURY 

REGARDING USER FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2023

Please be advised that the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 

has changed the fees it imposes and collects from surety companies and reinsuring 

companies payable in 2024.

The fees imposed and collected, as referred to in 31 CFR 223.22, cover the costs incurred

by the Government for services performed relative to qualifying corporate sureties to write 

Federal business. These fees are determined in accordance with the Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A-25.

The fee rate schedule is as follows:

(1) Examination of a company's application for a Certificate of Authority as 

an acceptable surety or as an acceptable reinsuring company on 

Federal bonds - $12,400.

(2) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual 

renewal of its Certificate of Authority - $8,000.

(3) Examination of a company's application for recognition as an Admitted 

Reinsurer (except on excess risks running to the United States) - $4,500.

(4) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual 

renewal of its authority as an Admitted Reinsurer - $3,200.

If you have any questions, please contact this office at surety.bonds@fiscal.treasury.gov.
Part 2 Fiscal Year 2022 Reporting

SUPPLEMENT Section IV

U.S. Standard General Ledger - Account Attribute Definition Report

Attribute Name Short

Name Attribute Definition Domain SystemChars Reference SuppliedBy

Bulletin No. 2022-04 Draft December 2021 IRC Handout

Disaster Emergency Fund 

Code

DEFC Distinguishes whether the budgetary resources, obligations 

incurred, unobligated and obligated balances, and outlays are 

classified as disaster, emergency, wildfire suppression or 

none of the three. Note - Once one of the three has been 

identified, the title "Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression", for example, will be replaced with the actual 

title identified by OMB such as "Emergency PL 115-56." For 

the recent list of DEFC values, visit the Disaster and 

Emergency Funding Tracking Dashboard 

(https://community.max.gov/x/cYW9V

1or 3 character OMB approved 

value

3/C OMB 

Guidance/TF

M

Bulk File
No. 51963.

#### European Agencies Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 105550-K/12629, etc. (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# sec6_rbalsh_2021

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2021-17	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RBS - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10April 21, 2021
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38526

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FIDEL FLORES RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 747

Filed: December 15, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Elmore County. Hon. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two and one-half years, for possession of a controlled 

substance, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Fidel Flores Rodriguez was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 

37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Rodriguez to a unified term of seven years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years. However, the district court retained 

jurisdiction and sent Rodriguez to participate in the rider program. Rodriguez appeals, claiming 

his sentence is excessive.1

 

1 Rodriguez was also found guilty of misdemeanor frequenting a place where controlled 

substances are known to be located. However, Rodriguez does not challenge that judgment of 

conviction or sentence in this appeal. 
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Rodriguez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

 : NO. 05-432

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION

NELKIS GUTIERREZ-GAINZA : NO. 09-2613

 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2009, upon consideration of the pro se Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 filed by petitioner, Nelkis Gutierrez-Gainza (Document No. 160, filed June 8, 2009), and

the Government’s Response, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, IT IS

ORDERED that the pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in

Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by petitioner, Nelkis Gutierrez-Gainza, is

DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Jan E. DuBois 

 JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00432-JD Document 167 Filed 08/11/09 Page 1 of 1
# Main

# Footnotes and Additional Inform
Docket No. FAA-2014-0395

Directorate ID 2014-SW-016-AD

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 75 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate 

that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an 

average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, inspecting the pulley bolt holes, and installing 

the tabbed washers will require 6 work hours, and required parts will cost $100, for a cost 

per helicopter of $610 and a total cost of $45,750 for the fleet.

Reviewing instructions, collecting and reviewing information, and submitting a 

report to the FAA will require 0.5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $43 and a cost 

of $3,225 for the fleet.

If necessary, replacing a pulley will require about 2 work-hours, and required 

parts would cost $800, for a total cost per helicopter of $970.
No. 61787.

#### Aero Sea Shipping Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 310319-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# C_2019082EN.01004801.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CX v Commission

(Case T-743/16 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Removal from post - Rights of the defence - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Articles 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Liability - Actual damage - Causal link))

(2019/C 82/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer.)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Simonetti and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFUE seeking, first, annulment of the Decision of 16 October 2013 in which the Commission found that the applicant was guilty of two instances of serious misconduct and, consequently, removed him from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 16 October 2013 by which the Commission removed CX from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 16 October 2013 by which the Commission removed CX from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-5/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 1 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 2 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 3 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 4 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 5 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 6 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 7 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 8 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 9 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 10 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 11 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 12 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 13 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 14 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 15 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 16 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 17 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 18 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 19 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 20 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 21 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 22 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 23 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 24 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 25 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 26 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 27 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 28 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 29 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 30 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 31 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 32 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 33 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04411-RB Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 34 of 34
**Part 2Fiscal Year 2015 Reporting**

**Supplement     Section I**

**PROPOSED NEW USSGL ACCOUNTS FOR FISCAL 2015**

**T/L S2 14-01 I - 1IRC Handout April 22, 2014**
##### 



Exhibit 9

In connection with the Annual Report of Husky Energy Inc. (the Company) on
Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) to which this
certificate is an exhibit, I, Neil D. McGee, Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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

|                     |  |                                                                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2003 |  | /s/ Neil D. McGee
Neil D. McGee
Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7328

DAVID L. FOLTZ, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00627-JAG)

Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 4, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David L. Foltz, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell 

Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David L. Foltz, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Foltz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 48446.

#### Protests 994486-G, etc., of Austin Nichols & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case 2:04-cv-05504-GEKP Document 230-2 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-05504-GEKP Document 230-2 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Registration   Statement
Nos.333-65974,  333-41454,  33-50922, 33-61532, 33-66482, 33-80726,  333-105910,
333-105886 and 333-33485 of Saucony,  Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March
30, 2004,  relating to the  consolidated  financial  statements and supplemental
schedules  listed in Item 15a(2) of Saucony,  Inc. as of and for the years ended
January 2, 2004 and  January 3, 2003  (which  report  expresses  an  unqualified
opinion and includes  explanatory  paragraphs relating to the change in the year
ended  January 3, 2003 in the method of accounting  for goodwill and  intangible
assets and to the application of procedures  relating to certain  disclosures of
financial  statement  amounts  related  to  the  January  4,  2002  consolidated
financial  statements  that  were  audited  by other  auditors  who have  ceased
operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of assurance
other than with respect to such disclosures)  appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Saucony, Inc. for the year ended January 2, 2004.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2004
No. P68/217.

protest 67/44880 (New York).

#### E. Miltenberg, Inc. *v.*United States,

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of striking hammers (sledges) similar in all material respects to those the subject of *James S. Baker (Imports) Co.*and *Ted L. Rausch et al.*v *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 553, C.D. 3048), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.