alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 5, 2012

p0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

143604

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143604 COA: 296236 Wayne CC: 09-019624-FC JAVORRIS LYMONT JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Katy Industries, Inc.
(the  "Company")  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, C.
Michael Jacobi, Chief Executive 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:

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

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

/s/ C. Michael Jacobi
---------------------
C. Michael Jacobi
Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Katy Industries, Inc. and will be
retained by Katy Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       95
|   | Exhibit 23, Form 10-K/A |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company |
|--------|------------------------------------|

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board        of Directors

Kansas        City Life Insurance Company:

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board        of Directors

Kansas        City Life Insurance Company:

We        consent to the use of our report dated February 29, 2008, with respect to the consolidated        balance sheets of Kansas City Life Insurance Company and subsidiaries (the Company) as of        December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income,        stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period        ended December 31, 2007, and all related financial statement schedules, and the        effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,        included herein. Our report dated February 29, 2008 on the consolidated fiancial statements        also contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company adopted American        Institue of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Statement of Position (SOP) 05-1,*Accounting by Insurance Enterprises for Deferred Acquisition Costs in        Connection with Modifications or Exchanges in Insurance        Contracts*, effective January 1, 2007 and Financial Accounting        Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation (FIN) No. 48,*Accounting for        Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement        109*, effective January 1, 2007.

 

/s/KPMG        LLP

KPMG        LLP

 

 

Kansas        City, Missouri

March 12,        2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

STANLEY SKEETERS

:

:

:

:

:

CRIMINAL ACTION

 NO. 05-530-1

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of March 2024, for the 

reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED 

that:

(1) The motion of defendant Stanley Skeeters for 

reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) 

(A)(i) (Doc. # 135) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

(2) His sentences on Counts 5, 7, and 9 are reduced 

to seven years each to run consecutively to each other, to the 

seven year sentence on Count 3 and to the one month current 

sentences on Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 for a total sentence of 28 

years and one month; and

(3) All other conditions of his sentence remain the 

same.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III

 J.

Case 2:05-cr-00530-HB Document 156 Filed 03/07/24 Page 1 of 1
1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 1 4 7 - CV
B R YA N A DL E R AP P E L L ANT V . TEX A S D EPA RTM EN T O F FAM I LY A PPELL EE A N D PRO TEC TI V E SERV I C ES

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

FR O M THE 158TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antBr yan A dl er ’ s not i ce of app ea l i ndi ca t es t hathe i s at t em pt i ng to a p p e a l th e c u s to d y a n d c h i l d s u p p o rt m o d i fi c a ti o n s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt a l l e ge dl y m a de o n M a r c h 25, 2008 . No o r de ro rj ud gm e n t d a ted M a rc h 25, 20 08 h a s been pr ovi ded t o us, and our r evi ew of t he t r i al cour t ’ s docket2

cur r ent l y i ndi cat es t hat no or derorj udg m ent w as ent e re d on or abou tM ar ch 25, 2008 . O n A pr i l 11 , 20 08 , w e not i f i ed t he par t i es t hat w e w er e concer ned t hat t hi s cour t m ay not have j ur i sdi ct i on ov ert hi s appeal because i tappear ed t hat t her e w as no f i nal orappeal abl e or der or j udg m ent . W e i ndi cat ed t hat t hi s case w oul d be di sm i ss ed f or w ant of j ur i sd i ct i on i f t he par t i es di d nots how gr ounds f orc on t i nu i ng t he a pp e a l b y Apr i l 21, 2008 . By m em o dat ed A pr i l 18 , 20 08 , A dl erin fo r m ed us t hat he w as uncl ear a s t o w ha to r de rt he t r i a l c ou r t e nt e r e d on M a r c h 25, 2008 . A cc or di ngl y, bec aus e t he t r i al co ur tha s ent er ed nei t hera f i nal j udgm ent noran ap pea l abl e i nt er l ocu t or y or der , w e m us tdi sm i ss t hi s app ea l f orw antof j u ri s d i c ti o n . S eeT EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51. 014 ( a) ( V er non Supp . 2 0 0 7 ) (l i s ti n g a p p e a l a b l e i n te rl o c u to ry o rd e rs ); Lehm ann v. Har- C on Cor p. , 39 S. W . 3d 191, 195 ( Tex. 2001 ) ( pr ovi d i n g gen er al r ul e t hatan ap pea l m ay be ta k e n o n l y fro m a fi n a l j u d g m e n t); see al so T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 2 .3 (a ), 4 3 .2 (f).

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL D : W A LKER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d M C C O Y, J. DEL I VERE D: M a y 8, 2008
No. 47362.

#### Protests 14593-K, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc., et al.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
No. 55247.

#### Bridgetts & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 167177-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
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

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERIE WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.K. & a., LLC DBA CASA RAMOS;

MARCO A. RAMOS, TRUSTEE OF 2001

MARCO RAMOS REVOCABLE TRUST,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV.S. 04-1448 LKK CMK

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S

04-1448 LKK CMK, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 26, 2005 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01448-LKK -CMK Document 12 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 1
```

[112th Congress Public Law 236]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 1627]]

Public Law 112-236
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To clarify the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. <<NOTE: Dec. 
                        28, 2012 -  [S. 3642]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Theft of Trade 
Secrets Clarification Act of 2012. 18 USC 1 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification 
Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 1832(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the 
matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or included in a product 
that is produced for or placed in'' and inserting ``a product or service 
used in or intended for use in''.

    Approved December 28, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 3642:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            Nov. 27, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 18, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
No. 6668.

#### SUCCESSION OF ALEXANDER MOBERY.

Syllabus.

1. Where the by-laws of a mutual benefit .society provide that a benefit shall be paid to certain persons and no others, the Courts cannot extend the number of such persons.

2. Such benefits form no part of the estate of the deceased.

Appeal from the 'Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “’0,” No. 113,184. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge.

¥m. Y. Seeber, for plaintiff and appellant.

W. L. Gleason, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The Amalgamated Association of Street Railway Employees, by its by-laws (Sec. 95), provides a funeral and death benefit for its members payable as follows (after deducting cost of burial) to-wit: 1st. To the widow 2nd. To the children and grand-children, share and share alike; 3rd. To the mother, father, grand-mother and grand-father, in the order named; 4th To “collateral heirs, brothers and sisters.”

*372In default of “lineal and collateral heirs, as herein provided” the benefit “shall remain as of the Death, Disability and Old Age Benefit Fund of the Association. ’ ’

But the foregoing is not to ‘ ‘ interfere with any will or testament of the deceased, provided that said will or testament of the deceased member embraces as beneficiaries those specified in this section.”

From the foregoing it is clear that the benefit above provided is intended solely for those mentioned, in default of' whom it inures to the death, etc., fund. On the other hand, the deceased may by will change the order •of payment, but may not enlarge the circle of those to whom payment is to be made.'

Prior to the year 1914, the collateral heirs provided for were mentioned as “sisters, brothers, etc.” But in that year the words “etc.” were expunged and the bylaws made to read “collateral heirs, brothers and sisters,” thus excluding all those who might have been included in the terms ‘ ‘ etc. ’ ’

II.

The deceased by his will, distributed his death benefit between a nephew, a niece and a stranger; the executors calls upon the Association to pay the benefit to him, and the Association refuses payment.

The trial Judge thought the association justified in its refusal and so do we.

By the plain terms of the by-laws, nieces and nephews, and strangers have no possible claim upon the fund under any circumstances. So that the executor has no right to the fund for the purpose of distributing it to them. The by-laws designate certain beneficiaries, and the Court cannot extend their number.

Succession of McNamara, 5 Court of Appeal, 13.

*373Opinion and decree, April 24, 1916.

Still less can the executor claim the fund for any other .purpose since it forms no part of the succession of the •deceased.

Judgment affirmed.
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

MARK HUNGERFORD, No. CIV S-04-1455-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

HEROUX, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time

(Doc. 33), filed on April 17, 2006. 

On March 21, 2006, the court directed plaintiff to file a first amended complaint

within 30 days. Plaintiff now seeks a 60-day extension of that deadline. Good cause appearing

therefor, the request will be granted. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with the court’s

March 21, 2006, order within the time provided in this order may result in dismissal of this

action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders and rules. See Local Rule

11-110. 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01455-LKK -CMK Document 34 Filed 04/20/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 60 days of the date of

service of this order.

DATED: April 19, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01455-LKK -CMK Document 34 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4341 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4341

  To require plain language and the inclusion of key words in covered 
   notices that are clear, concise, and accessible to small business 
                   concerns, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2024

   Ms. Ernst introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require plain language and the inclusion of key words in covered 
   notices that are clear, concise, and accessible to small business 
                   concerns, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Plain Language in Contracting Act''.

SEC. 2. ACCESSIBILITY AND CLARITY IN COVERED NOTICES FOR SMALL BUSINESS 
              CONCERNS.

    (a) In General.--Each covered notice shall be written--
            (1) in a manner that is clear, concise, and accessible to a 
        small business concern; and
            (2) in a manner consistent, to the extent practicable, with 
        the Federal plain language guidelines established pursuant to 
        the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (5 U.S.C. 301 note).
    (b) Inclusion of Key Words in Covered Notices.--Each covered notice 
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, include key words in the 
description of the covered notice such that a small business concern 
seeking contract opportunities using the single governmentwide point of 
entry described under section 1708 of title 41, United States Code, can 
easily identify and understand such covered notice.
    (c) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall issue rules to carry out this section.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered notice.--The term ``covered notice'' means a 
        notice pertaining to small business concerns published by a 
        Federal agency on the single governmentwide point of entry 
        described under section 1708 of title 41, United States Code.
            (2) Small business act definitions.--The terms ``Federal 
        agency'' and ``small business concern'' have the meanings given 
        those terms, respectively, in section 3 of the Small Business 
        Act (15 U.S.C. 632).

SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CUTGO.

    No additional amounts are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.2.c


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-18139 on Form S-3 of Kansas City Power and Light Company of our report dated
February 27, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to a change in accounting for goodwill and other
intangible assets), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kansas City
Power and Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2002.


/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
February 27, 2003
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

Gordon &

Rees LLP

655 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

-1- 

REVISED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CIV.S-04-1791 WBS CMK

CATHERINE L. MANSKE (SBN: 183815) 

GORDON & REES LLP 

655 University Avenue, Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Telephone: (916) 565-2900 

Facsimile: (916) 920-4402 

Attorneys For: Defendant 

RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

LYNN HUBBARD, III (SBN: 69773) 

SCOTTLYN J. HUBBARD, IV (SBN 212970) 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

12 Williamsburg Lane 

Chico, California 95926 

Telephone: (530) 895-3252 

Attorneys for: Plaintiff 

JAMES SANFORD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES SANFORD 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. dba 

RED ROBIN # 78; and DOES 1 through 10 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. CIV.S-04-1791 WBS CMK 

REVISED STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING 

THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

RELATING TO EXPERT DISCOVERY

Trial Date: March 28, 2006 

Plaintiff JAMES SANFORD, and defendant RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

have stipulated to the following: 

1. The parties stipulate to a continuance of the Final Pretrial Conference from January 

30, 2006 to March 3, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

2. The parties stipulate to extend all related deadlines pertaining to the January 30, 2006 

Final Pretrial Conference. As such, plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement is now due on February 17, 

2006, and defendant’s Pretrial Statement is now due on February 24, 2006. 

3. The parties stipulate to leave expert discovery open until January 16, 2006. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-01791-WBS-CMK Document 35 Filed 11/21/05 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

27

28

Gordon &

Rees LLP

655 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

-2- 

REVISED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CIV.S-04-1791 WBS CMK

SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: November 18, 2005 GORDON & REES LLP 

/s/ 

By: 

Catherine L. Manske 

Attorneys for Defendant 

RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Dated: November 17, 2005 LAW OFFICE OF LYNN HUBBARD, III 

 /s/ 

By: 

Lynn Hubbard, III 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JAMES SANFORD 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

1. The Final Pretrial Conference is rescheduled to March 3, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. 

2. Plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement is now due on February 17, 2006. 

3. Defendant’s Pretrial Statement is now due on February 24, 2006. 

4. Expert discovery shall remain open until January 16, 2006. 

Dated: November 18, 2005 

REDR\1031518\22887.1 

MNTR\1014218\6573.1 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-01791-WBS-CMK Document 35 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-0006 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-147-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 and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Incorporate AFM 

TR in AFM 

Emergency 

Procedure

2.5 $ 212.50 $0 $ 212.50 94 $19,975.00

$ 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: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $19,975

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

Replasement 23.0 $1,955.00 $722,556 $724,511.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (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 

*Explanation: 

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? Explain 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:
No. 50978.

#### Protests 946973-G, etc., of Geo. Borgfeldt Corp., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Third Division,

April 29, 1960

No. 64134.

protests 27441-K, etc. (Boston).

#### S. S. Pierce Company *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 plaintiff was sustained.