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

 According to his motion and declaration, the copy of the motion defendants’ originally 1

served upon him was damaged during its postal delivery.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY LYNN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0543 LKK GGH P

vs.

ARGRO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested a complete copy of defendants’ motion for summary

1

judgment, filed on May 5, 2006. Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to file and serve an

opposition to defendants’ May 5, 2006 motion for summary judgment, following re-service of

the motion. Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s request and an

amended proof of service, indicating that they re-served plaintiff with another copy of their

dispositive motion on June 12, 2006.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 9, 2006 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to defendants’ May 5, 2006 motion for summary judgment, which defendants

Case 2:04-cv-00543-LKK -GGH Document 49 Filed 06/20/06 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

have indicated was re-served upon plaintiff as of June 12, 2006. Defendants' reply, if any, shall

be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: 6/19/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/mp

lynn0543.36

Case 2:04-cv-00543-LKK -GGH Document 49 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2
# sec6_rbalsh_2021

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2021-20	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RBS - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BAugust 2021
Before the Second Division,

June 26, 1968

No. P68/291.

protests 300213-K, etc. (New York).

No. P68/292.

protest 58/456 (San Francisco).

No. P68/293.

protests 59/8756, etc. (Boston and New York).

No. P68/294.

protests 59/23449 and 59/29250 (Los Angeles).

No. P68/295.

protests 61/22451-12450 and 61/22892-12814 (Chicago).

No. P68/296.

protest 62/18408 (San Francisco).

#### American Bayard Cycle Co. et al. *v.*United States, Korlis, Ltd. *v.*United States, Bert Scheuer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States, Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States, Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bicycles, with or without tires having wheels in diameter (measured to the outer circumference of the tire) over 25 inches, weighing less than 36 pounds complete without accessories, and not designed for use with tires having a cross-sectional diameter exceeding *1%*inches and that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard &*Co., *Mangano Cycle Co.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE PLUMB,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICKI ABNEY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

CIV. S-04-0531-FCD-PAN-PS

ORDER

This matter was referred to the Honorable Peter A.

Nowinski, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 636, et seq., and Local Rule 72-302. On April 14, 2005, Judge

Nowinski recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

be denied and defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. On May

23, 2005, plaintiff filed untimely objections to the findings and

recommendation. 

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

Case 2:04-cv-00531-FCD-PAN Document 40 Filed 06/07/05 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

2

magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 14,

2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied;

and

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. 

DATED: June 6, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00531-FCD-PAN Document 40 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE NORMAN and EDITH HILL

TRUST, PAIMAN RAHBARIAN,

Defendants.

CIV S-04-0699 LKK PAN 

ORDER

-oOoThe court vacates that portion of its order filed September

22, 2005, requiring service of plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment upon the attorney for defendant Paiman Rahbarian. 

Plaintiff electronically served its motion upon Mr. Rahbarian’s

attorney in a timely manner, providing a certificate of service

upon only Mr. Rahbarian because he required service by mail. 

A prospective new attorney for Mr. Rahbarian has informed

the court that he intends to seek to substitute as counsel and

Case 2:04-cv-00699-LKK -PAN Document 44 Filed 09/30/05 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

2

respond to plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Accordingly,

the court will adhere to the rescheduling of the hearing on this

matter to Wednesday, October 12, 2005, at 9 a.m., in Courtroom

25.

So ordered.

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00699-LKK -PAN Document 44 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF IBP, inc.
December 27, 1997

The Bruss Company
Foodbrands America, Inc. (1)
IBP Caribbean Inc.
IBP Finance Company of Canada
IBP Foodservice, LLC (2)
IBP Foreign Sales Corporation
IBP Hog Markets, Inc.(3)
IBP International, Inc.
IBP International, Inc. Asia(4)
IBP International, Inc. Europe(4)
IBP of Wisconsin, inc.
IBP Service Center Corp.
Lakeside Farm Industries Ltd.
Lakeside Feeders Ltd.(5)
PBX, inc.
Prepared Foods, Inc.
Rural Energy Systems, Inc.
Supreme Processed Foods, Inc.
Texas Transfer, Inc.


	                         
(1)	Stock is 100% owned by IBP Foodservice, LLC
(2)	Membership consists of IBP, inc.; IBP Caribbean, Inc.; and 
Prepared Foods, Inc.
(3)	Also doing business as Heinold Hog Market
(4) 	Stock is 100% owned by IBP International, Inc.
(5)	Stock is 100% owned by Lakeside Farm Industries Ltd.
Order entered June 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00619-CV

DENNIS JAMES POLEDORE, JR., Appellant

V.

CHERI YLONDA POLEDORE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-14-13701

ORDER

Appellant, an inmate appearing pro se, has filed a motion to suspend rule 9.3(a) which 

requires a party filing any document in paper form to file also one unbound copy of the 

document. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3(a). Pursuant to rule 2, we GRANT the May 27, 2015 motion 

and DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to accept the original of any document filed by appellant 

even if not accompanied by the required unbound copy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN C. JENSEN, )

) 2:04-cv-00686-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster ) 

General of the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE,)

)

Defendant. )

)

On August 18, 2005, the government filed what it

characterizes as an “Application to File Under Seal Exhibits in

Support of Government’s Motion in Limine.” The government’s reference

to a “Motion in Limine” is bewildering since no such motion appears to

be pending. Therefore it is unclear why the government opines its

Application is ripe for decision. Accordingly, the Application is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00686-GEB -KJM Document 23 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8635)

Entry No. 711588, etc.

#### Charles L. Huisking and Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided September 7, 1956)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiffs.

*Oeorge Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

Presented by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of the *496decision herein, is the question of the proper dutiable value of certain 50- to 55-gallon steel drums imported from England, filled with duty-free cod-liver oil.

It has been stipulated and agreed by the parties hereto that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the involved drums to the United States, at which such or similar drums were freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of England, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was 10 English shillings per drum. The parties further agreed that there was no higher export value for such or similar drums at the time of exportation thereof.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the steel drums in controversy, and that such value is 10.English shillings per drum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 58944.

protests 183657-K, etc. (New York, Philadelphia, and Boston).

#### Wool Distributing Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed *“%*Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
<TABLE>
                                       EXHIBIT 11
                                  IONICS, INCORPORATED

                           COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
                               AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                                                       
<CAPTION>
                                                      YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31          

                                                1995            1994            1993   
<S>                                          <C>             <C>             <C>
Net Income                                   $19,682,000     $15,448,000     $13,807,000

Calculation of primary earnings per
common and common equivalent share:

Weighted average common shares outstanding    14,098,000      13,926,000      13,870,000

Increase from assumed exercise of 
stock options and investment of pro-
ceeds in treasury stock, based upon
average market prices                            532,000         272,000         250,000  

Weighted average number of common and 
common equivalent shares outstanding          14,630,000      14,198,000      14,120,000

Earnings per common and common
equivalent share                                   $1.35           $1.09           $ .98


Calculation of fully diluted earnings per
common and common equivalent share: 

Weighted average common and common equivalent
shares outstanding used in calculation
of primary earnings per common and
common equivalent share                       14,630,000      14,198,000      14,120,000

Increase from assumed exercise of stock
options and investment of proceeds in
treasury stock, based upon year-end
market price                                      67,000          42,000           8,000

Weighted average number of common and
common equivalent shares used to calculate
fully diluted earnings per common and 
common equivalent share                       14,697,000      14,240,000      14,128,000

Earnings per common and common
equivalent share assuming full dilution            $1.34           $1.08           $ .98

</TABLE>
65/
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

1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

ANA MARIA MARTEL

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: 916/554-2700

Facsimile: 916/554-2900

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(Sacramento Division)

ANDY ADAMS and HEATHER

ADAMS, husband and wife, et. al., 

Plaintiffs,

 

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al.,

Defendants.

Civil No. S-04-0979 DFL KJM-PS

JUDGMENT AGAINST BILL AND PAULINE CRAFT

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, Bill and Pauline Craft, and the United States of

America, judgment in favor of the United States and against Bill and Pauline Craft is entered in

the sum of four hundred thirty-three thousand nine hundred sixty-three dollars and nine cents

($433,963.09) together with accrued and accruing interest from and after October 5, 2006, all

costs and attorney’s fees in the sum of 10% of the debt.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/10/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00979-JAM -CMK Document 81 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Information for survivorannuitants [electronic resource].**
 
1999 | 2004| 2009 | 2011| 2013
 
SuDoc Number:PM 1.10:RI 25-26/
Item Number:0299 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000866374
 
February 10, 2020
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofInternational Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, David C. Treinen, the President and Chief Operating Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

1.                    The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  September 21, 2004 | DAVID C. TREINEN        |   |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                | David C. Treinen        |   |
|                                | President and           |   |
|                                | Chief Operating Officer |   |

 

----
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BENITO JULIAN LUNA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:04-cv-0627 MCE GGH P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner represented by counsel, proceeding with an application for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Presently calendared for hearing on October 

15, 2015 is petitioner’s motion to expand the record. Respondent has filed a non-opposition to 

the motion. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner’s motion to expand the record, filed August 28, 2015 (ECF No. 65), is 

granted; 

 2. All exhibits submitted by petitioner in connection with the motion are admitted into the 

record; and 

 3. The hearing scheduled for October 15, 2015 is vacated. 

Dated: October 6, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 67 Filed 10/07/15 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 

2

GGH:076/Luna0627.exp 

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 67 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2
No. 53996.

#### Griggs, Cooper & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 113990-K, etc. (Minneapolis).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 1 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 2 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 3 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 4 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 5 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 6 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 7 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 8 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 9 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 10 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 11 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 12 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 13 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 14 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 15 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 16 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 17 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 18 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 19 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 20 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 21 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 22 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 23 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 24 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 25 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 26 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 27 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 28 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 29 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 30 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 31 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 32 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 33 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 34 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 35 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 36 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 37 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 38 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 39 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 40 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 41 of 42
Case 1:07-cr-00459-RBK Document 457 Filed 12/29/09 Page 42 of 42
No. 55183.

#### The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation *v.*United States,

protest 156303-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Government counsel moved to dismiss the protest for failure to prosecute. The record showing that the case had been on the calendar four times and the plaintiff had appeared but once, the motion to dismiss was granted.
Exhibit 99.6

 Written Statement of the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form
10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.


/s/ Thomas M. Walker
--------------------
Thomas M. Walker
March 25, 2003
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 2 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 3 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 4 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 5 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 6 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 7 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 8 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 9 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 10 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 11 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 12 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 13 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 14 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 15 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-04580-MAM Document 98 Filed 07/16/08 Page 16 of 16
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


March 27, 2002

Office of the Chief Accountant
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:      Arthur Andersen LLP Representations

Dear Madam or Sir:

The financial statements of Torch Offshore, Inc. included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K have been audited by Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"). Andersen has
represented to us that its audit was subject to Andersen's quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards and that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel
working on the audit and availability of national office consultation to conduct
the relevant portions of the audit. Availability of personnel at foreign
affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Torch Offshore, Inc.



/s/ WILLIAM J. BLACKWELL
------------------------
By:  William J. Blackwell
     Chief Financial Officer and Director
     (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)