alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

09-3393
USA v. Shamek Hynson
2-05-cr-00576-002
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned appeal is stayed pending entry of a Judgment
and Commitment order by the District Court. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899 (3d
Cir. 1987). Appellant is directed to inform the Clerk in writing as to the date the District Court

enters the Judgment and Commitment order. Any objection to this order shall be filed with the
Clerk of this Court within ten (10) days from the date of this order.

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P, a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision,
sentence or order -- but before the entry of the judgment or order -- is treated as filed on the date
of the order and after its entry. Accordingly, it is not necessary to file a subsequent notice of
appeal after the judgment and commitment order is entered.

For the Court,
Plareca In Waldron

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Dated: August 21, 2009
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Canyon Copper Corp. - Exhibit 10.2






PROMISSORY NOTE

	EXECUTED BY: 	CANYON COPPER CORP. 
	  	(the "Borrower") 
	 	 
	IN FAVOUR OF: 	ANTHONY R. HARVEY 
	  	(the "Lender") 
	 	 
	PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: 	CDN $25,000 
	 	 
	DATE OF EXECUTION: 	July 7, 2008 
	 	 
	PLACE OF EXECUTION: 	Vancouver, British Columbia



FOR VALUE RECEIVED the Borrower hereby promises to pay
to or to the order of the Lender on January 7, 2009, the principal sum of CDN
$25,000, together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum, calculated
and compounded annually, both before and after maturity from the date
hereof.

The Borrower waives presentment, demand, notice, protest and
notice of dishonour and all other demands and notices in connection with the
delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Promissory
Note.

The Borrower agrees this Promissory Note may be negotiated,
assigned, discounted, or pledged by the Lender and in every case payment will be
made to the holder of this Promissory Note instead of the Lender upon notice
being given by the holder to the undersigned, and no holder of this Promissory
Note will be affected by the state of accounts between the undersigned and the
Lender or by any equities existing between the undersigned and the Lender and
will be deemed to be a holder in due course and for the value of the Promissory
Note held by him.

DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia this 7th day of July,
2008.

CANYON COPPER CORP. 
by its authorized signatory:

/s/ Kurt Bordian
KURT BORDIAN
No. 47840.

#### Protests 590103-G, etc., of Straw Goods Exchange et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel 8-bu. paper hats, similar to those the subject of *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), as claimed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Circle Group Holdings, Inc.
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"),
I, Gregory J. Halpern, Chief Executive Officer of the Circle Group Holdings,
Inc. certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                 (1)  The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of Circle Group Holdings, Inc.

Dated:  May 12, 2004                       /s/ Gregory J. Halpern
                                           ----------------------
                                           Gregory J. Halpern
                                           Chairman of the Board, President and
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 5/27/2023 1

A List of Inactive Voters 

in Lawrence, Massachusetts 

¿OÍSTE? v. City of Lawrence 

(Nathaniel M. Gorton, D. Mass. 1:05-cv-12218) 

On the Friday before a local election, two voters and a political organization filed a federal complaint seeking relief from a recent notification to a large number of potential voters that they had been 

placed on an inactive list. On Monday afternoon, the judge recessed 

proceedings for twenty-three minutes for the parties to agree on a 

statement to voters in both English and Spanish to be broadcast and 

printed in the media. Several months later, after three filings stating 

that the parties were working to resolve matters without litigation, 

the judge dismissed the case without prejudice. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Registration 

procedures; case assignment. 

At 5:01 p.m. on the Friday before the November 8, 2005, election in Lawrence, Massachusetts, two voters and a political organization filed a federal 

complaint in the District of Massachusetts seeking relief from a recent notification to a large number of potential voters that they had been placed on an 

inactive list.1 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.2

 The case was docketed on Monday morning.3

Because of the unavailability of Judge William G. Young, who signed a 

1999 consent decree concerning the rights of Latino voters in Lawrence,4

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton presided over a hearing at 4:20 p.m. on the day 

before the election.5 At 5:10, Judge Gorton recessed proceedings for twentythree minutes for the parties to agree on a statement to voters in both English 

and Spanish to be broadcast and printed in the media.6

On July 12, 2006, after three filings stating that the parties were working 

to resolve matters without litigation,7

 Judge Young dismissed the action 

without prejudice.8

1. Complaint, ¿OÍSTE? v. City of Lawrence, No. 1:05-cv-12218 (D. Mass. Nov. 7, 2005), 

D.E. 1; Transcript at 19, id. (Nov. 7, 2005, filed Dec. 14, 2005), D.E. 11. 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Nov. 7, 2005), D.E. 5. 

3. Docket Sheet, id. (Nov. 7, 2005) [hereinafter ¿OÍSTE? Docket Sheet]; Transcript, supra

note 1, at 4–5 (noting that the judge received the matter at 8:49 a.m.). 

4. See Docket Sheet, United States v. City of Lawrence, No. 1:98-cv-12256 (D. Mass. Nov. 

5, 1998). 

5. Transcript, supra note 1. 

6. Id. at 38–42; ¿OÍSTE? Docket Sheet, supra note 3. 

7. Stipulation, ¿OÍSTE?, No. 1:05-cv-12218 (D. Mass. June 5, 2006), D.E. 17; Stipulation, 

id. (Apr. 14, 2006), D.E. 16; Stipulation, id. (Mar. 23, 2006), D.E. 15. 

8. Order, id. (July 12, 2006), D.E. 19.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0776 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 12 and 16, 2007, plaintiff filed documents styled, “Priority

Request for Discovery,” and “Request for Discovery.” In the former, he seeks disclosure of

information pursuant to state law so that he can provide information necessary for service of

process on R. Kelly. The previous attempt to serve Kelly was returned unexecuted. In the latter,

he purports to seek discovery from defendants in order to prosecute this action.

With respect to the March 12, 2007, request, the court is without authority to direct the

production of information pursuant to California law. 

With respect to the March 16, 2007, request, interrogatories, requests for production,

requests for admission, responses and proofs of service thereof “shall not be filed with the clerk

until there is a proceeding in which the document or proof of service is at issue. When required 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 85 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

in a proceeding, only that part of the request and response that is in issue shall be filed.” Local

Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c) & 36-250(c). Defendants have not responded to the complaint. At

this stage, there is no proceeding requiring consideration of plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Accordingly, the court takes no action on plaintiff’s March 12 and March 16, 2007,

requests. 

So ordered. 

Dated: April 9, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 85 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 62540.

#### Richter Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 327718-K, 330759-K, and 58/4482 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that- the items marked “A” consist of fried herring similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Richter Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 128, C. A. D. 649), *430the claim at 6)4 percent under the provision in paragraph 718 (b), as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52782), for herring, prepared or preserved in any manner, packed in airtight containers weighing with their contents not over 15 pounds each, without added oil or oil and other substances, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1862), were held dutiable, as claimed, at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 718 (a), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 51954), for sardines, neither skinned nor boned, when packed in oil.
Before the Third Division,

April 6, 1960

No. 64061.

protests 736566-G, etc. (New York).

#### D. & B. Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams*& *Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58000.

protests 184046-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Forte Dupee Sawyer Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. 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. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein 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 the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report on the consolidated financial statements of Alliant Energy
Corporation included in this Alliant Energy Corporation Form 10-K into
Alliant Energy Corporation's previously filed Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-41485, 333-46735, 333-51126 and 333-92783) and Form S-3 (Nos.
333-26627, 333-65674 and 333-70964).







/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
-----------------------
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 25, 2002
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Technical Preservation Services
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

Order (2:04-cv-00065 MCE-CKD)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY COX,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE 

PRISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:04-cv-00065 MCE-CKD

ORDER

Upon the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the hearing for petitioner’s 

motion to perpetuate testimony (ECF No. 143) is continued from April 22, 2015 to May 27, 2015

at 10:00 a.m.

Dated: April 6, 2015

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 145 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 1
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Perform Batch Control on Batch Close

To close a batch, complete the following steps:

1. From the Batch Control page, 

Under Batch Detail,

• Enter the Batch Control Count

• Enter the Batch Control Amount

2. Select Next.

• If Batch Control is set to optional, the CCLO, CCO, or CCS can choose to select to 

Next button without entering the Batch Control count and amount.

• If the amount of a check item was incorrectly entered, select Cancel to return to the 

OTCnet Home Page. No data is saved. 

• If you are a CCLO or CCO and discover that the amount of the check item was 

incorrectly entered, contact your CCS, and edit the check using the Show Item

window.

3. The Close Batch page appears. Select Print PDF Report or Export and select Confirm

to close the batch. After Print PDF Report or Export is selected, the Confirm button is 

enabled as shown in Figure 1. The batch is not closed until Confirm is selected.

Figure 1. Print Batch List Report (Batch Close)

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

A user may print the PDF report or export the batch list report, regardless of whether the 

Close Batch and/or Approve Batch checkboxes are checked or unchecked. A CCS or 

CCA can specify the Batch List Report Print/Export Required During options under 

Advanced Administration. 

Application Tip
#### Jose ABITO, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Counter Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 00-15912.

D.C. No. 99-00085-SC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Abito (“Abito”) appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor *553of United Airlines, Ine. (“United”) in Abi-to’s action alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e— 2000e-17. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review the district court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. *DeGrassi v. City of Glendora,*207 F.3d 636, 641 (9th Cir.2000). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Abito’s Title VII claims because, even assuming that Abito established a prima facie case, he did not provide specific and substantial evidence that United’s proffered reason for his termination — poor work performance— was pretextual. *See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.,*26 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir.1994).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Abito’s Rule 56(f) motion because Abito did not demonstrate that additional discovery would preclude summary judgment and why he could not “immediately provide ‘specific facts’ demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact.” *United States v. One 1985 Mercedes,*917 F.2d 415, 418 (9th Cir.1990); *see also Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before the Second Division,

June 19, 1968

No. P68/270.

protests 62/110, etc. (New York).

#### Lafayette Brass Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Bao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “B” covered by the foregoing protests consist of hoze nozzles in chief value of brass similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Lipman’s*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859); that the items marked “C” consist of hoze nozzles in chief value of zinc the same in all material respects, except the component material of chief value, as those the subject of C.A.D. 859, *supra;*and that the items marked £tD” consist of sprays, connections, and couplings, in chief value of brass, 'the hose 'sprays being screwed on to the end of a garden hose as a spray in place of a nozzle such as that involved in said C.A.D. 859, and the couplings and connections being used to join together two lengths of such garden hose, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
EXHIBIT 99.1

Date:   May 20, 2003

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

FrontLine Capital Group (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and exchange commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I Scott H. Rechler, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to ss. 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
    as of September 30, 2002 (the last date of the period covered by the
    Report).



                         By:  \s\ Scott H. Rechler
                              --------------------
                         Scott H. Rechler, President and Chief Executive Officer
                         (Principal Executive Officer)
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 700096

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### JU QUAN D. AUSTIN Culinary Specialist Seaman Apprentice (E

- 2), U.S. Navy Appellant

_____________

____________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: CAPT Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: C ommanding Officer, USS Nimitz (CVN 68)

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Co mmander

James M. Kennedy, JAGC, USN. For Appellant : Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton
, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 31 M ay 2017

_________________________ Before C AMPBELL , F ULTON , and M ILLER , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
AO NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR TRAINING PROGRAMS 

Please consider the following items when you are considering designing a 

training program for court personnel. 

1. \\'hat topics would like discussed at this particular workshop? 

Be specific in your response. 

2. What target population should be trained? 

3. How often should the training program be offered? 

4. Other comments and suggestions. 
WORKSHEE:T FOR DEVELOPING THE TRAINING BUDGE:T 

FOR AO-SPONSORED TRAINING PROGRAM 

1. Course Description 

2. No. of people to be trained 

3. No. of sessions 

4. No. of student days (# to train x # of days in session) 

5. Location of training site 

(RegionallJ/Nationwide Average Per Diem Rate $100) 

6. No. of AO staff to participate 

7. No. of contractor instructors 

8. Course De\'elopment Cost (Contractor) 

9. On-Site Instruction (Cost per instructor) 
PG 1 & 2 

CALCUL.\ TE THE FOLLOWING EXPEt\TDITURES FOR A GRAND TOTAL 

AO EXPENDITURES 

A. AO costs: AO staff travel (per diem x # of days) + (round trip airfare 

average: $325) + $75 misc. x # of participants x # of courses 

B. Instructor travel 

C. Course Development 

D. On-site Instruction 

. (# of courses x cost per x # of instructors) 

GRAND TOTAL: 

COURT EX'PENDITURES 

A. Court costs: Court personnel travel (per diem x # of days) + (round trip 

airfare + $75 misc. x # of participants 

B. Training Facility 

(Aver: 2,000) x # of sessions 

GRAND TOTAL:
## SERVE D JUN E10,201 0
U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
INTH EMATTERO F FEDERA LEXPRES S CORPORATIO N FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP10GL000 4 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMSNo.FAA-2010-053 9

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No
. 2009-GL-70-0354 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC
. Goodwin
. A H future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do nth e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r

person s o n th e attache dServic e List
.

Ronm e A
. Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w J u Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP10GL000 4 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1OOO '

ON ECOP Y Courtne y E
. Felts , Respondent' s Counse l Staf f Attorney , Federa l Express , Inc
. 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g B , 3' " Floo r Memi^his , T N 38125-880 0 TEL : 901-434-863 2 FAX : 901-434-828 3 Kate Barber , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Great Lake s Region , AGL- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e DesPlaines,I L6001 8 TEL : 847-294-786 2 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roon i E12- 3 2 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , use th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000, Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
No. 51999.

#### Robert McBratney & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 38654-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. P68/274.

protest 67/18659-1604 (Chicago).

#### World Famous Sales Co. *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of synthetic rubber ivader boots and synthetic rubber hunting boots similar in all material respects to the synthetic rubber articles the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
January 30, 1950

No. 54007.

Suit 4614.

#### Nylos Trading Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1133 affirmed December 12, 1949. C. A. D. 422.