alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN MANUEL TORRES VALENCIA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72618 

Agency No. A090-521-994 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2019**

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Juan Manuel Torres Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

APR 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-72618 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Torres Valencia fails to challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum and 

withholding of removal claims. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 

1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s 

opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to those claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Torres-Valencia failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured 

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Torres Valencia’s 

contention that the BIA failed to consider the country conditions evidence 

submitted. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(holding that petitioner must overcome presumption that BIA considered all the 

relevant evidence).

Torres Valencia’s motion to hold the case in abeyance (Docket Entry 

No. 22) is denied. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 5 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 1 of 2

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 5 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11371

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00456-JSM-CPT-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANTO MANUEL REYES DELGADO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 16, 2020)

Before BRANCH, FAY and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-11371 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 1 of 2
2

Mark Ciaravella, appointed counsel for Santo Delgado, in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Delgado’s convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11371 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL KEITH CRAPE,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-1004-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 1, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01004-GEB-GGH Document 9 Filed 10/03/06 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 1, 2006, are adopted in full;

and 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Dated: October 3, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01004-GEB-GGH Document 9 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Consent of Independent Auditors
We consent to theincorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Kansas City LifeInsurance Company (the Company) of our report dated January 24, 2000 withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the yearended December 31, 1999 included in the 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders ofKansas City Life Insurance Company. 

Our audit also included thefinancial statements schedules of Kansas City Life Insurance Company for the yearended December 31, 1999 listed in Item 14(a). These schedules are theresponsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion based on our audit. In our opinion, the financial statementsschedules referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financialstatements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all material respects, theinformation set forth therein. 

We also consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-97351)pertaining to the Savings and Profit Sharing Plan of Kansas City Life InsuranceCompany of our report dated January 24, 2000 with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements referred to above incorporated by reference and our reportdated March 8, 2002 with respect to the financial statements schedules referredto above in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001. 

                                                                                                  Ernst & Young LLP
Kansas City, MissouriMarch 8, 2002
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

PAUL A. WESBECHER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0807 FCD CMK P

vs.

DANIEL FOY, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed on January 19, 2006. 

Documents filed by petitioner since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue

in response to future filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00807-FCD-CMK Document 43 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

501 “I” STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

Scott Johnson

 DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v.

Case No. CIV S-04-0699 LKK PAN

The Norman and Edith Hill Trust, 

Paiman Rahbarian

__________________________

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED default judgment is hereby

ENTERED against defendant:

Paiman Rahbarian to remove the architectural

barriers described in the magistrate judge’s recommendations

within 90 days from entry of judgment and for damages in the

amount of $4,000.00.

March 21, 2006

JACK L. WAGNER, CLERK

By: _/s/ C. Girgis____

 C. Girgis, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:04-cv-00699-LKK -PAN Document 51 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 1
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NOS. CIV. 04-1358 WBS GGH

05-0559 WBS GGH

05-1726 WBS GGH

CONSOLIDATED

ORDER

----oo0oo----

On April 27, 2009, plaintiffs filed a request to file 

exhibits under seal in connection with their motion for summary

judgment. (Docket No. 481.) This request asks the court to

enforce the protective order issued by the assigned Magistrate

Judge on October 1, 2007 (Docket No. 259). Because the order

sought would not be dispositive of any issue in the case and

deals only with how documents shall be filed, this request is

likewise hereby referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 482 Filed 04/29/09 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 29, 2009

 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 482 Filed 04/29/09 Page 2 of 2
**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 CounterPath Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Bruk, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive, Principal Financial and Principal Reporting 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: September 14, 2006.

/s/ Mark Bruk                                                  

Mark Bruk 

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,

Secretary, Treasurer and Director

(Principal Executive, Financial and Reporting Officer)

 

 

D/JLM/900882.1
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 6542 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 038

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Replacement 4.0 $ 340.00 $638 $ 978.00 

### 197 $ 192,666.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 192,666



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Ana lysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Ex planation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3920 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3920

To make permanent the authority to reimburse a member of the uniformed 
   services for spouse relicensing and business costs following the 
                       relocation of the member.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2024

Mr. Ossoff (for himself and Mr. Schmitt) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make permanent the authority to reimburse a member of the uniformed 
   services for spouse relicensing and business costs following the 
                       relocation of the member.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Spouse Job Continuity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED 
              SERVICES FOR SPOUSE RELICENSING AND BUSINESS COSTS 
              FOLLOWING MEMBER'S RELOCATION.

    Section 453(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (3); and
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
        (3) and (4), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.6


 


Secured Notes Modification Agreement


 


AGREEMENT by and between Protalex,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Niobe Ventures, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Niobe”).


 


WHEREAS, Niobe is the holder of the
thirteen Secured Promissory Notes listed on the attached Schedule A (hereinafter referred to individually as the “Outstanding
Note”) made by the Company in the aggregate principal amount of $5,030,000, each with a Maturity Date (as defined in
the Outstanding Note) of September 1, 2016; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend
the respective Maturity Date of each Outstanding Note to September 1, 2017;


 


NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.    The
respective Maturity Date of each Outstanding Note is hereby extended to September 1, 2017.


 


2.    Except as otherwise
modified hereby, all other terms and provisions of each Outstanding Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
duly executed and delivered this Secured Notes Modification Agreement as of the date indicated below.


 


Dated: August 31, 2016


 


	 	PROTALEX, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Kirk M. Warshaw
	 	 	Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	NIOBE VENTURES, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Arnold P. Kling
	 	 	Arnold P. Kling, Manager


 




    	 	 



     


    

 


Schedule A


 


Outstanding Notes with September 1,
2016 Maturity Dates


 


	Outstanding
 Notes –
 Issuance Dates	 	Principal	 
	11/4/2014	 	$	300,000	 
	11/26/2014	 	$	430,000	 
	1/9/2015	 	$	645,000	 
	2/4/2015	 	$	545,000	 
	3/9/2015	 	$	395,000	 
	4/1/2015	 	$	300,000	 
	5/1/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	5/29/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	7/1/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	7/31/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	8/31/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	10/6/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	11/10/2015	 	$	345,000	 
	Total	 	$	5,030,000
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 6/23/2023 1

Wrongfully Requiring Photo Identification 

for Voter Registration 

Pakosz v. Orr (John W. Darrah, N.D. Ill. 1:06-cv-5992) 

On the Thursday before the 2006 general election, a pro se plaintiff 

filed a federal complaint alleging that he was wrongfully prevented 

from registering to vote. The complaint was docketed on Monday, 

and the federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that day 

requiring the defendants to issue the plaintiff a voter-registration 

card. The defendants had wrongfully required the plaintiff to present photo identification, which was not required by the voterregistration statute. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Voter identification; 

registration procedures; pro se party. 

On the Thursday before the 2006 general election, a pro se plaintiff filed a 

federal complaint in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that he was 

wrongfully prevented from registering to vote.1

The complaint was docketed on Monday,2

 and Judge John W. Darrah 

heard the matter at 9:00 a.m. that day.3 He granted the plaintiff a temporary 

restraining order: “I take judicial notice of the fact that today is November 

6th and that tomorrow is November 7th. I find, therefore, that if a court in 

equity does not act to protect this right that the right will be lost. Therefore, 

I’m going to grant the relief sought.”4

As forms of identification, the plaintiff had provided “two utility bills, a 

library card, and a letter from U.S. Senator Richard Durbin.”5 He was denied 

registration because he did not provide state-issued photo identification.6

Illinois law required “two forms of identification, and except in the case of a 

homeless individual, one of which must include his or her residence address.”7

 The voter-registration statute did not require photo identification.8

Judge Darrah ruled, “Defendants are ordered to accept Plaintiff’s voter registration application and issue a voter’s registration card so that Plaintiff may 

vote on a provisional ballot in the election on November 7, 2006.”9

1. Minutes, Pakosz v. Orr, No. 1:06-cv-5992 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2006), D.E. 6 [hereinafter 

Nov. 6, 2006, Minutes]; Docket Sheet, id. (Nov. 2, 2006) (D.E. 1). 

2. Docket Sheet, supra note 1. 

3. Transcript, Pakosz, No. 1:06-cv-5992 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2006, filed July 13, 2007), D.E. 

12; Nov. 6, 2006, Minutes, supra note 1. 

Judge Darrah died on March 23, 2017. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Transcript, supra note 3, at 7. 

5. Nov. 6, 2006, Minutes, supra note 1.

6. Id.

7. 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4-10; see Minutes, supra note 1.

8. 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4-10; see Minutes, supra note 1. 

9. Nov. 6, 2006, Minutes, supra note 1. 
Wrongfully Requiring Photo Identification for Voter Registration 

2 Federal Judicial Center 6/23/2023 

At a November 28 status conference, Judge Darrah closed the case as resolved.10

10. Minutes, Pakosz v. Orr, No. 1:06-cv-5992 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2006), D.E. 11.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TONY MERRITT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2027

[November 14, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Roger B. Colton, Senior

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502010CF007109AXXXMB.

Tony Curtis Merritt, Jasper, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., TAYLOR and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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

 Respondent was granted an extension of time to file objections by Order filed on

2/28/06.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR ANDERSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1172 GEB GGH P

vs.

CA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 23, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Respondent

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

Case 2:04-cv-01172-GEB-GGH Document 57 Filed 03/22/06 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

2

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Respondents’ August 4, 2005 motion to dismiss the amended petition on the

ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is denied; and

3. Respondents must file an answer within thirty days of the filed date of this

order.

Dated: March 21, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01172-GEB-GGH Document 57 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 43986.

#### Petition 5899-R of Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

From the testimony it was found that the importer acted in good faith. The petition was tnerefore granted.
**Exhibit23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued ourreport dated August 15, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financialstatements and schedule included in the Annual Report of K-tel International,Inc. on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended June 30, 2004. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the RegistrationStatements of K-tel International, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-65755effective November 25, 1987, File No. 333-28815 effective June 9, 1997, FileNo. 333-65755 effective October 15, 1998, File No. 333-74471 effective March16, 1999, File No. 333-31272 effective February 28, 2000, and File No.333-39022 effective June 9, 2000).
|                        | /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP |   |
|------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                   |
|                   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota |
| September 12, 2006     |

 

----
No. 63608.

protest 59/7669 (Los Angeles).

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.