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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-09-338-CR

2-09-339-CR

LEROY GARY RUSHING III APPELLAN

T

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “Appellant's Motion To Dismiss Appeals.” The motion

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P.

43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 20, 2010

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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

JARON BRIGNAC,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1690 DFL KJM P

vs.

T. SANCHEZ,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested that this action be

dismissed. On May 27, 2005, defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s request. 

As provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), plaintiff's request shall be honored.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed.

DATED: June 17, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

brig1690.59

Case 2:04-cv-01690-DFL -KJM Document 24 Filed 06/20/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN D. TERRITO, No. 2:04-cv-1460-MCE-PAN-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

RICHARD W. SANDHAM, M.D., 

et al., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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 February 24, 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 fourteen

(14) days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 50 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

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:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 24,

2006, are adopted in full; and 

2. Plaintiff’s December 8, 2005, and January 3, 2006,

Motions for Preliminary Injunction are denied.

DATED: April 20, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 50 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2
Evidence Table A2. CONTINUOUS outcomes for class CLEANSER (TOPICAL)

Trial # 

Method 

Continuous Outcome Name (Units)

Definition/Comments

Followup (wks)Comparator

Data Type: Mean (SD) Within P Data Type: Mean (SD) Within P

Target Between

 P-value

Comparison

A.01.01 Acidic syndet bar Soap

197 Inflammatory (count)

Baseline counts: 13 (Target) / 15 

Percent Change*: -22 .0001 Percent Change*: 05

Parallel Mild

È N=114 .0001 NS*

Non-inflammatory (count)

Baseline counts: 7 (Target) / 7 (Comparator)

Mid (12) Percent Change*: -12 Percent Change*: 31 NS*

A.01.05 Silicic acid Vehicle

204 Comedones (count)

Count location: Left cheek. 

Short (6) Raw count: 15 (66.) .01 Raw count: 46

Parallel Mod

È N=30 NS NS

Cysts (count)

Count location: Left cheek. Baseline counts: 1 

(Target) / 0 (Comparator)

Short (6) Percent Change*: -100 Percent Change*: -25 NS

Papules (count)

Count location: Left cheek. Baseline counts: 

11 (Target) / 11 (Comparator)

Short (6) Percent Change*: -91 .001 Percent Change*: 00 NS NS

Pustules (count)

Count location: Left cheek. Baseline counts: 7 

(Target) / 6 (Comparator)

Short (6) Percent Change*: -100 .0001 Percent Change*: -06 .01 NS

 TRIAL: - presence of positive or negative methodological features (see Summary Table). "mild/mod," etc., - our assessment of entry severity of study patients. "P"- parallel study, "S"- split face design. TARGET 

and COMPARATOR: "Percent change"- an outcome derived from individual final and baseline measures; "Percent change*"- we calculated a group-based percentage change; "Change" - raw difference from baseline; 

"Change*" - calculated change; "Measure" - an outcome measure with no baseline comparison. SD: standard deviation. WITHIN P: P-value with respect to baseline in one arm. BETWEEN P-VALUE: comparison 

between Target and Comparator arms.

EvidenceTable A CONTINUOUS: Page 1 of 1

ÈÍ
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

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 16), filed on January 3, 2006, will be 1

addressed by separate findings and recommendations issued herewith.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELO QUINTIN DOWNEY, No. CIV S-04-1725-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

K. PROSPER,

Defendant.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.-PC. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc.

17), filed on January 12, 2006.1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her

pleading “. . . once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Once a responsive pleading is filed, a party’s pleadings may only be

amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See id. Where leave of court to

amend is sought, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable

Case 2:04-cv-01725-GEB-CMK Document 19 Filed 04/06/06 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

relationship between the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to

amend is in the interest of judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire

controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of

leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the

opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d

1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is

frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

Because defendant filed a responsive pleading on January 3, 2006 – before

plaintiff sought leave to amend – plaintiff properly seeks a court order. In its entirety, plaintiff’s

request is as follows:

I, Angelo Quintin Downey, request leave of this court . . . to amend my

complaint # CIV. 04-1725 as to F.R.C.V.P 15. Amend part will be the

Remedies/Reliefs.

Because no proposed amended complaint was provided with the motion, it is impossible for the

court to evaluate whether there is any relationship between the proposed amendment to the

request for relief and the original complaint. For example, if plaintiff’s amendment sought to

add a request for relief against parties not named in the complaint, this condition would not be

met. Therefore, leave to amend will not be granted at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to

amend is denied.

DATED: April 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01725-GEB-CMK Document 19 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10733)

#### Enco Chemical Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 26996, etc.

(Decided April 28, 1964)

*Eugene B. Piclcrell*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OmvER, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are directed to the merchandise, represented by the invoice items marked “A” and initialed “GWL,” which consists of sodium perborate, exported from West Germany “during the period 1958 through May 15, 1961.”' Appraisement thereof was made on the basis of foreign value, as such value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (74 Treas. Dec. 17, T.D. 49646).

*534Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the merchandise in question and the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those which were the subject of decision in *United States*v. *Philipp Brothers*Chemicals, *Inc.,*46 Cust. Ct. 803, A.R.D. 134, the record in which case was incorporated herein by consent.

Following the cited decision, I find that the proper basis for ap-praisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor, as shown in the stipulation of submission, is as follows:

> Date of exportation Value

> 10/14/58 through 7/22/59 $12.30 per 100 *lbs., less ocean*freight *and*insurance to New York

> 7/23/59 through 8/30/60 $11.20 per 100 lbs., less ocean freight and insurance to New York

> 9/1/60 through 5/15/61 $10.50 per 100 lbs., less ocean freight and insurance to New York

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-400]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region II 
Regulatory Fairness Board

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Region II Regulatory 
Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a 
public hearing on Friday, January 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. The meeting will 
take place at Madison Square Garden--Theater Entrance, 7th Avenue 
between W 32nd and W 33rd Streets, New York, NY 10001. The purpose of 
the meeting is to receive comments and testimony from small business 
owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations 
concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by 
Federal agencies.
    Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact 
Herbert Austin, in writing or by fax, in order to be placed on the 
agenda. Herbert Austin, Deputy District Director, SBA, New York 
District Office, 26 Federal Plaza, Suite 3100, New York, NY 10278, 
phone (212) 264-1482 and fax (202) 401-2224, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#145c7166767166603a756167607d7a546776753a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cd4f9eefef9eee8b2fde9efe8f5f2dceffefdb2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For more information, see our Web site at http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.

Matthew Teague,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-400 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 2:04-cv-00482-LKK -DAD   Document 179    Filed 10/07/05   Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00482-LKK -DAD   Document 179    Filed 10/07/05   Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00482-LKK -DAD   Document 179    Filed 10/07/05   Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00482-LKK -DAD   Document 179    Filed 10/07/05   Page 4 of 4

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T08:59:06-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

RAMON URBINA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. No. 16

- 50294

D.C. No. 3 :1 6

- c r

- 00375

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry Alan Burns

, District Judge , Presiding

Submitted February 15 , 2018 **

Pasadena, California

Before: MCKEOWN and WARDLAW , Circuit Judges, and DONATO, ** * District

Jud ge.

Ramon Urbina appeals his jury conviction for importation of

methamphetamine on the ground that the district court improperly admitted

* 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).

** * The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the

Northern Distr ict of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 6 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

evidence of three text messages found on his phone over his relevance objection.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

While the relevance of the three text messages was debatable, we find no

abuse of discretion by the district court. United States v. Rendon

- Duarte , 490 F.3d

1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court undertook a considered balancing of

the probative value of the proffered evidence against its potential for unfair

prejudice to the defendant. Even if the district court’s determination s were in

error, such error was harmless. The jury was presented with overwhelmin g

evidence of Urbina’s guilt , including the approximately fifteen pounds of

methamphetamine that was found in the car he drove into the United States from

Mexico at the time of his arrest. Consequently, the alleged error did not materially

affect the verd ict. United States v. Mitchell , 376 F . App ’ x. 749, 750 (9th Cir.

2010).

AFFIRMED

.
EXHIBIT
32
 
 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 Vitasti, Inc.  (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb,
Chief Executive Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Date: August
23, 2005
 By: /s/
TAMMY-LYNN MCNABB
 
 Name:
 Tammy-Lynn McNabb
 Title:
   Chief Executive Officer
No. 54037.

#### Brauner & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 15032A-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners & Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it involves the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, is subject to an allowance in duties. The protest was sustained to this extent.
April 12, 1948

No. 52271.

protests 129052-K, etc.

#### Kasenit Co. *v.*United States,

Abstract 52226. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing, granted.
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

MICHAEL B. WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0464 LKK GGH P

vs.

MARK IWASA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 30, 2006, the court granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) for relief from judgment and reopened plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff was directed to file a

second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of that order. 

On March 30, 2006, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that this action be dismissed because plaintiff failed to file a second amended

complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

On April 17, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to these findings and recommendations,

claiming that he had not received the January 30, 2006 order, and thus, failed to file the second

Case 2:04-cv-00464-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 07/26/06 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

amended complaint within thirty (30) days of that order.

Although the court has reviewed the docket and it appears that the January 30, 2006 order

was served on plaintiff, the court provides plaintiff one final opportunity to file his second

amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file his second amended complaint

within thirty (30) days of this order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the abovecaptioned case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 25, 2006.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00464-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 07/26/06 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

LEACH CHHOEUN, 2:04-cv-1629-GEB-CMK

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, who is proceeding with appointed counsel,

brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On July 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein. The findings and recommendations were

issued following petitioner’s statement of non-opposition to

respondents’ motion to dismiss the instant petition as premature. 

No party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-01629-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/28/05 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

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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 8,

2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Petitioner’s petition is dismissed without

prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter

judgment and close this file.

Dated: September 27, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01629-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

★(Star Print)

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4526 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to expand the 

types of one-stop centers used to provide services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2024 

Mr. BUDD (for himself and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

to expand the types of one-stop centers used to provide 

services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Workforce Develop5 ment Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ONE-STOP CENTERS. 

7 Section 121(e) of the Workforce Innovation and Op8 portunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3151(e)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2)— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

S 4526 IS1S 

1 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘1 

2 physical center in each local area of the State; 

3 and’’ and inserting ‘‘1 physical or virtual center 

4 in each local area of the State, or at 1 or more 

5 physical or virtual centers shared by adjacent 

6 local areas and not less than 1 such center in 

7 each other local area of the State;’’; 

8 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking 

9 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

10 (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking the 

11 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

12 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(E) may locate a physical or virtual cen14 ter descibed in subparagraph (A) at a public in15 stitution of higher education.’’; 

16 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘, the employ17 ment service’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘, 

18 in each State that has a physical one-stop center, 

19 the employment service offices in that State shall be 

20 colocated with the physical one-stop centers in that 

21 State.’’; 

22 (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para23 graph (3); and 

24 (4) by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

S 4526 IS1S 

1 ‘‘(5) RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOCAL AREAS AND

2 STATES.—For purposes of applying this Act in a sit3 uation in which 2 adjacent local areas share a phys4 ical or virtual one-stop center, a reference in this 

5 Act to a one-stop center that is in a local area or 

6 State shall be considered to be a reference to a one7 stop center for that local area or State, respectively. 

8 ‘‘(6) VIRTUAL CENTER.—In this subsection, the 

9 term ‘virtual’, used with respect to a one-stop center, 

10 means a terminal or other equipment that provides 

11 access to each of the programs, services, and activi12 ties described in paragraph (1).’’. 

13 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

14 Section 3(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 

15 49b(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘, employment service’’ 

16 and all that follows and inserting ‘‘, in each State that 

17 has a physical one-stop center, the employment service of18 fices in that State shall be colocated with the physical one19 stop centers in that State.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Rosa Lee Rodriguez, as next /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 12, 2015

No. 04-15-00049-CV

MORNINGSIDE MINISTRIES d/b/a Morningside Ministries at the Manor and the 

Morningside Ministries Foundation, Inc.,

Appellant

v.

Rosa Lee RODRIGUEZ, as next friend of Flora Mendez,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-07530

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The parties have filed an agreed motion to stay the appellate deadlines in this appeal 

pending mediation. The motion is GRANTED, and the appellate deadlines are suspended

pending further order of this court. Appellants are ORDERED to file a status report regarding 

the outcome of the mediation no later than April 15, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 65501.

#### Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 60/4080-11345, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the *441subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), tbe claim of tbe plaintiff was sustained.