alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





KINDER MORGAN, INC.

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 Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kinder Morgan, Inc. and will be retained by Kinder Morgan, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|                         |  |                                                       
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  March
  14, 2006 |  | /s/ Richard D. Kinder                                 
|                         |  | Richard D. Kinder
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





---

---
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

ERNEST CASSELL WOODS, II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Violation of Court

Order in re: Filing Fee.” In this document, plaintiff alleges that prison officials are withdrawing

from his trust account twice the amount of money that he owes each month toward the filing fee

in this action. Plaintiff requests that prison officials be ordered to withdraw the correct amount

of money from his account.

On November 4, 2005, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s October 18, 2005,

pleading. On November 10, 2005, defendants filed the declaration of Evva Pryor, Accounting

Supervisor at California State Prison-Solano, in support of their response. Defendants state that

two separate filing fee holds were placed on plaintiff’s trust account because plaintiff is

proceeding with two separate actions in this court, i.e. the instant action and CIV S-05-0049. 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 48 Filed 11/22/05 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

After reviewing the record, it appears that the correct amount of money has been

withdrawn from plaintiff’s trust account for payment of his filing fee in the instant action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 18, 2005,

request that prison officials be directed to withdraw the correct amount of money from his trust

account is denied. 

DATED: 11/22/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

wo1225.po

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 48 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 63085.

#### Camera Specialty Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 292769-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60940, the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappr.aisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d).
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 Quarterly Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
E. Drimal Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Charles E. Drimal Jr.Chief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      24, 2009
Before the Third Division,

June 17, 1963

No. 67823.

#### Dentorium Products Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 62/4002 and 62/18089 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of artificial teeth similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Air Express Int’l Agency, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 163, C.D. 2251), the claim at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1558, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52827), for nonenumerated manufactured articles was sustained. Other items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of shade guides the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Swissedent International*and *Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 174, C.D. 2298), were held entitled to free under the provision in paragraph 1821(a) and (b), as added by Public Law 85-211 (T.D. 54463), for samples to be used in the United States only for soliciting orders for products of foreign countries, so treated that they are unsuitable for sale or for use otherwise than as samples, as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 9476)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2241, etc.

(Decided June 23, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Ooelvram Doul),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule for *466decision upon stipulation limited to the invoices where the merchandise was advanced in value and appraised on the basis of home market value. As to such merchandise, upon the basis of the said stipulation, I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value thereof, and that such value, in each instance, was the appraised unit value, less 4 per centum, packed.

The appeals for reappraisement having been abandoned with respect to the invoices embraced in such appeals where appraisement was made on the basis of the entered unit invoice values, they are, to that extent, dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
WILKE, FLEURY,

HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

223647.1 - 1 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER S-04-1358 

LKK/GGH; S-05-559 LKK/GGH; S-05-1726 

LKK/GGH

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & 

BIRNEY, LLP 

William A. Gould, Jr., Bar No. 035446 

wgould@wilkefleury.com

Daniel L. Baxter, Bar No. 203862 

dbaxter@wilkefleury.com

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

E-mail: wgould@wilkefleury.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

HOLLISTER, INC. (plan administrator), SAMUEL 

BRILLIANT (plan trustee), JAMES J. 

McCORMACK (plan trustee), JAMES A. 

KARLOVSKY (plan trustee), RICHARD T. 

ZWIRNER (plan trustee), MICHAEL C. WINN 

(plan trustee), LORETTA L. STEMPINSKI (plan 

trustee), DONNA J. MATSON (plan trustee), 

ALAN F. HERBERT (plan trustee), HOLLISTER 

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP TRUST (the 

EIAP), THE FIRM OF JOHN DICKINSON 

SCHNEIDER, INC. (de facto fiduciary) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. S-04-1358 LKK/GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF 

FILING DATES FOR DEFENDANTS 

BRENDA DIMARO AND HALLIE 

LAVICK’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY 

BRENDA DIMARO and HALLIE 

LAVICK, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. S-05-1726 LKK/GGH 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 86 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 2
WILKE, FLEURY,

HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 

223647.1 - 2 - 

STIPULATION AND ORDER S-04-1358 

LKK/GGH; S-05-559 LKK/GGH; S-05-1726 

LKK/GGH

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between counsel for the respective parties that 

Plaintiffs Brenda Dimaro and Hallie Lavick shall have up to and including June 16, 2006 within 

which to file a First Amended Complaint. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that Defendants herein named shall have up to and 

including June 30, 2006 within which to file their answer or to otherwise plead. 

DATED: May _____, 2006 WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, 

GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP 

/SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL 

 WILLIAM A. GOULD, JR. 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

DATED: May _____, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

/SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL 

SCOTTLYNN J. HUBBARD, IV 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton

 Lawrence K. Karlton 

 Senior Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 86 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark S. Greenblatt, certify that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.
|  
|3.
|  
|4.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)
|   
|(c)
|   
|(d)

|  
|--
|5.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)

Date:
    November 17, 2008

|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ MARKS. GREENBLATTMark S. GreenblattVice PresidentChief Financial Officer



---
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUHTAMAKI FOODSERVICE, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-04-1494 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of both the joint application for

order shortening time and the joint motion to extend time to

disclose expert reports. 

The motion shorting time is DENIED as unnecessary. However,

the motion to extend the deadline for filing expert reports is

GRANTED. 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01494-LKK-JFM Document 47 Filed 09/21/05 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

1 The court notes in passing that under the Court’s December

10, 2004 Status Order, the parties will have only five (5) days

from the date of filing their expert reports to have any motions

to compel discovery heard by the assigned magistrate judge.

2

The parties are granted until November 1, 2005 to file expert

reports.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 21, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01494-LKK-JFM Document 47 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2
**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 m otion 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
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHARLES B. RICHARDSON, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

18 USCMA 52, 39 CMR 52

*53No. 21,529

December 6, 1968

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Lieutenant Colonel Martin S. Drueker,*and *Major David J. Passamaneck*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain Warren W. Kaufman*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam :

On a plea of guilty made without previous agreement with the convening authority, the accused was convicted by a general court-martial in Germany of an unauthorized absence of nearly eleven months. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for one year, and accessory penalties. In this Court, the accused contends he was prejudiced as to the sentence by remarks of his counsel to the effect that “probably the army would be better off without” him and that an “appropriate and just sentence” could include a bad-conduct discharge.

The record contains no indication that the accused was desirous of a punitive discharge. Cf. United States v Blunk, 17 USCMA 158, 37 CMR 422. On the contrary, several circumstances tend to indicate that the accused did not want to be separated from the service with that type of discharge. He is twenty-nine years of age and has had four years of service. As defense counsel observed to the court members, exhibits admitted in evidence demonstrated that, prior to his entry into the service, he “led a rough life.” Apparently, the accused had reenlisted because of a lack of job opportunities in the civilian community for one with “his qualifications.” On his return to military control, he was “cooperative throughout” the investigation into the offense.

In a number of cases we have pointed out that there is a vast difference between defense counsel’s “passive acceptance of the force of adverse facts and a positive declaration [by him] that a punitive discharge is appropriate.” United States v Mitchell, 16 USCMA 302, 304, 36 CMR 458; United States v Mella, 17 USCMA 122, 37 CMR 386. In our opinion, defense counsel in this case conceded too much, to the accused’s prejudice. His concession requires reversal of the sentence.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for resubmission to the board of review. In its discretion, the board of review may assess another sentence which does not include a punitive discharge, or direct a rehearing of the sentence before a court-martial.

Judge Darden did not participate in the decision in this case.
Amaru-AWA Merchandising, Inc. v. Hsin Wei Hsu, et al. 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California 

Farber & Company Attorneys LLP 

Stipulation to Dismiss - 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

Eric J. Farber, SBN 169472 

FARBER & COMPANY ATTORNEYS, LLP 

847 Sansome Street, Suite LL 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone 415.434.5320 

Attorneys for Plaintiff: 

Amaru-AWA Merchandising, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

Amaru-AWA Merchandising, Inc. a California 

Corporation, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Hsin Wei Hsu, an Individual and doing business 

as Capitol Cellular; Capitol Cellular, Inc., a 

Suspended California Corporation; The Digital 

Wireless Store, a California Corporation; and 

Does 1 to 100, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: S-04-1324 LKK DAD 

 Stipulation to Dismiss All Defendants and 

All Causes of Action with Prejudice and 

Order 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and a confidential Settlement and Release 

Agreement completed by Defendants, on or about September 12, 2005, the Parties hereby stipulate 

to dismiss this matter in its entirety, with prejudice. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-01324-LKK -DAD Document 47 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 3
Amaru-AWA Merchandising, Inc. v. Hsin Wei Hsu, et al. 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California 

Farber & Company Attorneys LLP 

Stipulation to Dismiss - 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

Dated: September_____, 2005 

By: FARBER & COMPANY ATTORNEYS, LLP 

Signature on original 

 Eric J. Farber, SBN 169472 

 847 Sansome Street, Suite LL 

 San Francisco, California 94111 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Amaru-AWA 

Merchandising, Inc. 

Dated: September_____, 2005 

By: READ & ALIOTTI, P.C 

Signature on original 

 Michael B. Read 

 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100 

 Sacramento, CA 95833 

Attorneys for Defendants Hsin Wei Hsu and 

Capitol Cellular, Inc. 

Dated: September_____, 2005 

By: MacKenzie and Brody 

Signature on original 

 Roderick L. MacKenzie 

 1028 Second Street, 3rd Floor 

 Sacramento, CA 95814 

Attorneys for Defendant The Digital Wireless 

Store 

Case 2:04-cv-01324-LKK -DAD Document 47 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 3
Amaru-AWA Merchandising, Inc. v. Hsin Wei Hsu, et al. 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California 

Farber & Company Attorneys LLP 

Stipulation to Dismiss - 3 

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

In light of the forgoing stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

Any and all causes of action and claims for relief made by Plaintiffs against all Defendants 

are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: October 7, 2005 

 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton

 Lawrence K. Karlton 

 Senior Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01324-LKK -DAD Document 47 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 3
Before the First Division,

December 4, 1958

No. 62533.

#### Levin Bros. *v.*United States,

protest 330546-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of compass rings similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58039, 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH M. CASSELLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs.

D. MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve a reply to defendants’

opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's May 24, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a reply to defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint. 

DATED: June 12, 2006.

/mp:001

cass1798.36

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 63 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                         2,258
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         1,909
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               6,268
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    5,511
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         87,162
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           83,064
<LOANS>                                        218,336
<ALLOWANCE>                                    741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 332,538
<DEPOSITS>                                     278,591
<SHORT-TERM>                                   408
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            6,371
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5,206
<OTHER-SE>                                     41,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 332,538
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                3,874
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,667
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               5,541
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3,459
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,468
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2,073
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,429
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,429
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   940
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 2.57
<LOANS-NON>                                    2,667
<LOANS-PAST>                                   10
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               743
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  2
<RECOVERIES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              741
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           741
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        741



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Annual Report of Irwin Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, (the Report), I, Gregory F. Ehlinger, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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, as amended; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  March 9, 2005
    /s/ Gregory F. EhlingerGregory F. EhlingerChief Financial Officer
No. P68/284.

protest 63/10086 (Los Angeles).

#### The Newman Company v. United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of motorboats *1053similar in all material respects to tiróse the subject of *The Newman Company*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 117, C.D. 2739), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.