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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4392 

To establish the Southern Border Wall Construction Fund and to transfer 

unobligated amounts from the Coronavirus State and local fiscal recovery 

funds to such Fund to construct and maintain physical barriers along 

the southern border. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2024 

Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. COTTON, Ms. 

LUMMIS, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. RISCH, and Ms. ERNST) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To establish the Southern Border Wall Construction Fund 

and to transfer unobligated amounts from the 

Coronavirus State and local fiscal recovery funds to such 

Fund to construct and maintain physical barriers along 

the southern border. 

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 ‘‘Build the Wall Act 

5 of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4392 IS

1 SEC. 2. SOUTHERN BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION FUND. 

2 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the 

3 general fund of the Treasury a separate account, which 

4 shall be known as the ‘‘Southern Border Wall Construc5 tion Fund’’ (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Fund’’). 

6 (b) DEPOSITS.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

7 of law, there shall be immediately deposited into the Fund 

8 all of the unobligated amounts in the Coronavirus State 

9 and local fiscal recovery funds established under sections 

10 602 and 603 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 802 

11 and 803). 

12 (c) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts in the Fund shall be 

13 used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to construct 

14 and maintain physical barriers along the southern inter15 national border of the United States. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00063

- CR

CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW LUNA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 7th District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 007

- 1157

- 18

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Christopher Matthew Luna has filed a motion to dismiss th is appeal. 1 As

authorized by Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure , we grant the motion. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: August 19, 2019

Date Decided: August 20, 2019

Do Not Publish

1 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21
                          JEFFERSON-PILOT CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARY LISTING AS OF MARCH 17, 2003

Jefferson-Pilot Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

    The Guarantee Life Companies Inc. (Delaware corp.)

       Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company (Nebraska corp.)(2)

          Jefferson Pilot LifeAmerica Insurance Company (New Jersey corp.)

    HARCO Capital Corp. (Delaware corp.)

    Hampshire Funding Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)

    Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust A (Delaware business trust)

    Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust B (Delaware business trust)

    Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company (North Carolina corp.)

       Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of California (North Carolina
       corp.)

       Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Colorado (North Carolina corp.)

       Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Florida (North Carolina corp.)

       Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Georgia (North Carolina corp.)

       Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of North Carolina (North Carolina
       corp.)

Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Virginia (Virginia corp.)

Jefferson-Pilot Communications/WBTV, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

Jefferson-Pilot Sports, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

WCSC, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)

          Tall Tower, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)

    Jefferson Pilot Investment Advisory Corporation (Tennessee corp.)

    Jefferson-Pilot Investments, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

    Jefferson Pilot Variable Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

    Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

       Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

    Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation (New Hampshire corp.)

       Allied Professional Advisors, Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)

       The Polaris Group, Inc. (Connecticut corp.)

          Polaris Financial Services, Inc. (Connecticut corp.)(2)

          Polaris Advisory Services, Inc. (Connecticut corp.)(2)
---------------

Notes:

(1) Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.
(2) The immediate parent owns 100% of the voting securities of each entity,
    except that Jefferson-Pilot Corporation directly owns 80% of Jefferson Pilot
    Financial Insurance Company, and 10% of each of the lower tier Polaris
    companies is owned by Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation.
(3) All entities more than 50% owned are listed, except that various
    subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.

                                       E-3
----

----

I Informācija

Komisija

----

KOPĒJAIS DĀRZEŅU ŠĶIRŅU KATALOGS

24. pilnā izdevuma 6. papildinājums

(2006/C 241 A/01)

SATURS

Paskaidrojumi

Dārzeņu sugu saraksts

----

PASKAIDROJUMI

----

(1)OV C 275 A, 8.11.2005., 1. lpp. Katalogā jaunākie grozījumi izdarīti ar 5. papildinājumu (OV C 158 A, 7.7.2006., 23. lpp.).

(2)OV L 193, 20.7.2002., 33. lpp. Direktīvā jaunākie grozījumi izdarīti ar Direktīvu 2004/117/EK (OV L 14, 18.1.2005., 18. lpp.).

----

1.ALLIUM ASCALONICUM L.

2.ALLIUM CEPA L.

5.ALLIUM SATIVUM L.

16.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. ALBA DC.

17.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. RUBRA DC.

20.BRASSICA RAPA L. VAR. RAPA

21.CAPSICUM ANNUUM L.

23.CICHORIUM INTYBUS L. (PARTIM)

24.CICHORIUM INTYBUS L. (PARTIM)

26.CUCUMIS MELO L.

27.CUCUMIS SATIVUS L.

32.DAUCUS CAROTA L.

34.LACTUCA SATIVA L.

35.LYCOPERSICON LYCOPERSICUM (L.) KARSTEN EX FARW.

38.PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.

39.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

40.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L.

43.SOLANUM MELONGENA L.

----
Before the Second Division,

August 29, 1949

No. 53523.

protests 553098-G, etc. (Los Angeles and San Francisco).

#### Eagle Drug Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit 10(b)


DISCRETIONARY COMPENSATION


Because special situations occur where individual achievement may not be adequately recognized under a single incentive plan, the Compensation and Governance Committee (the "Committee"), at the beginning of each fiscal year, grants authority to the Chairman of the Board ("Chairman") and/or the President/Chief Executive Officer to distribute additional discretionary cash and/or stock compensation up to an aggregate maximum amount to eligible participants for each particular fiscal year. For fiscal year 2012 , the aggregate amount of cash compensation approved by the Committee was $500,000, and the maximum number of shares approved by the Committee was 600,000 shares of Class A or Class B Common Stock. The stock compensation may be in the form of performance share award opportunities and/or outright grants of shares of Common Stock, all to be awarded under the Company's 2003 Stock Option and Incentive Plan.  Discretionary compensation is awarded based upon individual effort and is paid in amounts and at such times as the Chairman and/or President/Chief Executive Officer determine, in their sole discretion. No employee has a guaranteed right to discretionary compensation in the event that performance targets are not met.


Eligible participants include any employee of the Company, excluding the Chairman and President/Chief Executive Officer for cash or stock compensation, and excluding executive officers of the Company for stock compensation, except where approved by the Committee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0104

ERIC HATHAWAY,

 

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ZOOT ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendant and Appellee.

ORDER GRANTING ZOOT 

ENTERPRISES, INC.’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Pursuant to Appellee Zoot Enterprises, Inc., Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time and good cause shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee’s motion is GRANTED. 

Appellee’s Answering Brief is due on or before August 6, 2021.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 24 2021

06/24/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0104
No. 51408.

#### Protests 124652-K, etc., of Cambridge Handkerchief Works, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 65503.

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/7683-15910, etc. (New Orleans).

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 subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard*& *Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Harry Nelson Miller,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1154 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

David L. Runnels,

Respondent.

-oOoJune 14, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time to

file and serve a reply. Good cause appearing, petitioner’s

request is granted and time is extended until 30 days from the

date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: June 23, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01154-AK Document 10 Filed 06/23/05 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

ANTHONY ALONZO

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1622-GEB-CMK

vs.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

Secretary of the Department of 

Veteran’s Affairs

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 11, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01622-GEB-CMK Document 45 Filed 06/05/06 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

 With the objections, plaintiff has submitted new evidence in the form of statements by 1

plaintiff, four affidavits from plaintiff, a letter to the VA counsel and several memos, and

questions to witnesses. While a district court judge may receive additional evidence under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) when determining whether to accept or reject a magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations, the court exercises its discretion and declines to consider the new

evidence, as plaintiff has not provided any reason why the evidence was not submitted during the

two month period the summary judgment motion was pending before the magistrate judge issued

the findings and recommendations. U.S. v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622-23 (9 Cir. 2000), cert.

th

denied, 534 U.S. 831 (2001) (district court judge has discretion to reject evidence submitted after

findings and recommendations have issued). 

2

 objections to the findings and recommendations; the undersigned has considered the objections

and has determined there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on the

points raised in the objections.

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 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 11, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated: June 2, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01622-GEB-CMK Document 45 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

      The following list sets forth subsidiaries of Katy Industries, Inc. as of
March xx, 2002, as well as operating divisions of such subsidiaries, with
successive indentation indicating parent/subsidiary relationships of such
subsidiaries. The percentage (unless 100%) of outstanding equity securities
owned by the immediate parent and the state of jurisdiction or incorporation of
each such subsidiary is stated in parentheses. Omitted subsidiaries do not, in
the aggregate, constitute a significant subsidiary.

American Gage & Machine Company (Illinois)
Bee Gee Holding Company, Inc. (Florida) (43%)
Contico International, L.L.C. (Delaware)
    Contico Manufacturing Limited (U.K.)
    Contico Manufacturing (Ireland) Limited (Ireland)
CRL Export, Inc. (U.S. Virgin Islands)
Glit/Disco, Inc. (Delaware)
Hallmark Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
   Bay State
   Duckback Products, Inc. (Delaware)
         Primary Coatings, Inc. (Delaware)
   GC/Waldom Electronics, Inc. (Delaware)
         Katy International, Inc. (Delaware)
   Glit
   Glit/Gemtex, Inc. (Delaware)
   Glit/Microtron
   Hamilton Precision Metals, Inc. (Delaware)
         HPMNC, Inc.
         HPM of Pennsylvania, Inc.
                  Hamilton Metals, L.P.
   Loren Products
   Wabash Holding Corp. (Delaware)
   Wilen Products, Inc. (Delaware)
Katy International, Inc. (British Virgin Islands)
Katy Oil Company of Indonesia (Delaware)
     Katy-Teweh Petroleum Company (Delaware)
Katy-Seghers, Inc. (Delaware)
    Savannah Energy Systems Company Limited Partnership (Georgia)
PTR Machine Corp. (Delaware)
W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Company (Texas)
Woods Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
    Thorsen Tools, Inc. (Delaware)
Woods Industries (Canada), Inc. (Ontario, Canada)
   Glit/Gemtex, Ltd. (Ontario, Canada) (June 1, 1997 and forward)


                                       67
Before Chief Judge Rao,

February 6, 1968

No. R68/16.

reappraisements R62/1335, etc. (New York).

#### Shalom Baby Wear, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and relevant facts are the same in all material respects as those in *Shalom*Baby-Wear, *I no.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10905), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the various articles of cotton and ramie in issue and that such value is the appraised value, less the buying commission, as stated on the invoices.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000537

09-AUG-2019

08:52 AM
Exhibit 10.23




                                 C. R. LARKIN

                             TERMS OF SEPARATION


-  Voluntary separation date of March 31, 1998.

-  Severance agreement (parachute) as exists.

-  My salary will be paid through August 25, 1998.  (Paid in a lump   
   sum on March 31, 1998, or I will sign a consultant agreement and   
   my salary can be paid every two weeks, until August 25, 1998.)

-  Retention bonus of $250,000 to be paid on March 31, 1998.

-  Bonus based on NPB bonus plan on achievement of plan for full      
   fiscal '98 (prorated for 75% of fiscal year) (paid by 8/31/98).

-  Waiver of $125,000 bonus for cost reduction synergies

-  Waiver of $125,000 bonus for developing successful strategy        
   organization integration of global medical products company

-  Waiver of SAR




/s/ C. Raymond Larkin, Jr              Date:     12/12/97
---------------------------                 ------------------
C. Raymond Larkin, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Nellcor Puritan Bennett
Executive Vice President Mallinckrodt



/s/ C. Raymond Holman                   Date:    12/15/97             
---------------------------                  ----------------- 
C. Ray Holman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Mallinckrodt Inc.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                   Exhibit 11.0

                                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                                         Three months ended    Six months ended
                                                           June 30, 2005         June 30, 2005
                                                         --------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                     <C>
Income available to common stockholders                    $     85,883            $    188,766

Weighted average shares outstanding                           2,396,121               2,311,198

Basic earnings per share                                   $       0.04            $       0.08

Income for diluted earnings per share                      $     85,883            $    188,766

Total weighted average common shares and
    equivalents outstanding for diluted computation           2,396,121               2,311,198

Diluted earnings per share                                 $       0.04            $       0.08

</TABLE>



                                                  17
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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of General Steel Holdings,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify that:



The Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q/A”) of the Corporation fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|/s/ Zuosheng Yu               | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Zuosheng Yu                   | 
|Chief Executive Officer       | 
|(Principal Executive Officer) | 
|August 29, 2012               | 



|/s/ John Chen                 | 
|----------------------------- | 
|John Chen                     | 
|Chief Financial Officer       | 
|(Principal Financial Officer) | 
|August 29, 2012               |
Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 1 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 2 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 3 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 4 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 5 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 6 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 7 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 8 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 9 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 10 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 11 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 12 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 13 of 14

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN   Document 39    Filed 06/19/06   Page 14 of 14

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-20T20:14:07-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

stip dismissal #02.wpd

1

STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

DAVID M. GONOR, ESQ. [SBN 170478]

SPILE & SIEGAL, LLP.

16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 610

Encino, California 91436-2072

Tel: (818) 784-6899

Fax: (818) 784-0176

dgonor@spile-siegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant / Cross-Complainant,

ANTONINO ARCURI, an individual

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIRILO PARRA, DEANNA

POIDOMANI,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANTONINO ARCURI, AND DOES 1

through 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

_____________________________

ANTONIO ARCURI,

 Cross-Claimant,

 v.

CIRILO PARRA, and ROES 1

through 50, inclusive.

 Cross-Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CIV.S-04-1519 WBS 

GGH

STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’

COMPLAINT

It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties that the Complaint of

Plaintiffs Deanna Poidomani and Cirilo Parra is hereby dismissed with

Case 2:04-cv-01519-WBS-GGH Document 23 Filed 01/09/06 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

27

28

stip dismissal #02.wpd

2

STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

prejudice. 

SO STIPULATED.

DATED: SPILE & SIEGAL, LLP.

By: ______________________________

DAVID M. GONOR, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant / Cross-Claimant

ANTONIO ARCURI

DATED: LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD F. ANTOINE

By: ______________________________

RICHARD F. ANTOINE, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, CIRILO PARRA and

DEANNA POIMOMANI

ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of the parties and GOOD CAUSE appearing, it

is hereby ordered that the complaint in this matter is dismissed, with

prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-01519-WBS-GGH Document 23 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 58553.

protests 198287-K, etc. (New York).

#### Distilled Brands, Inc., and Flagstaff Foods et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, 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.