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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4756 

To subject aliens convicted of certain crimes to expedited removal from 

the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2024 

Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mr. BUDD, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To subject aliens convicted of certain crimes to expedited 

removal from the United States. 

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 ‘‘No Visas for Violent 

5 Criminals Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES FOR UNLAWFUL 

7 PROTEST-RELATED ACTIVITIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 237(a)(2) of the Immi9 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is 

10 amended by adding at the end the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4756 IS

1 ‘‘(G) UNLAWFUL PROTEST-RELATED AC2 TIVITIES.—Any alien who is convicted of a 

3 crime— 

4 ‘‘(i) related to the alien’s conduct at 

5 and during the course of a protest that oc6 curs at an institution of higher education 

7 (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

9 1001(a))) or at a facility in the United 

10 States operated by a religious institution; 

11 ‘‘(ii) involving the defacement, van12 dalism, or destruction of a Federal memo13 rial or monument, including any veterans 

14 memorial referred to in Executive Order 

15 13934 of July 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 

16 41165; relating to Building and Rebuilding 

17 Monuments to American Heroes); or 

18 ‘‘(iii) involving the intentional obstruc19 tion of any highway, road, bridge, or tun20 nel, 

21 is deportable.’’. 

22 (b) CANCELLATION OF VISA; REMOVAL.—If any alien 

23 is convicted of a deportable crime described in section 

24 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amend25 ed by subsection (a)— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4756 IS

1 (1) any visa issued to such alien shall imme2 diately be cancelled; and 

3 (2) not later than 60 days after such conviction, 

4 such alien shall be removed from the United States. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit












Exhibit 10(c)
AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE
TO THE
HARRIS CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN


WHEREAS, Harris Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), heretofore has adopted and maintains the Harris Corporation Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2016 (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.1 of the Plan, the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Corporation’s Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) has the authority to amend the Plan;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.3 of the Plan, the Compensation Committee has delegated to the Employee Benefits Committee of the Corporation (the “Employee Benefits Committee”) the authority to adopt non-material amendments to the Plan; 
WHEREAS, the Plan includes certain terms and conditions regarding investment by a participant in the self-directed brokerage account available under the Plan, including that contributions newly made for a participant’s benefit may not be directly invested in such account;
WHEREAS, the Employee Benefits Committee desires to amend the Plan to remove the above-described restriction preventing direct investment in the Plan’s self-directed brokerage account of contributions newly made for a participant’s benefit; and
WHEREAS, the Employee Benefits Committee has determined that the above-described amendment is not material.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective as of November 2, 2016, Section 8.2(d) of the Plan hereby is amended as follows:
(d)    Special Rules Concerning the Self-Directed Brokerage Account.  Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, (i) a Participant may not elect to invest in the self-directed brokerage account more than 20% of the aggregate contributions newly made for his or her benefit and (ii) a Participant may not transfer any portion of the Participant’s existing Account from investment in funds other than the self-directed brokerage account to investment in the self-directed brokerage account if such transfer would cause more than 20% of the Participant’s existing Account to be invested in the self-directed brokerage account.  Any transfer to the self-directed brokerage account shall be in an amount that is no less than $500 (for the avoidance of doubt, such $500 minimum investment shall not apply to new contributions directly invested in the 


1







self-directed brokerage account).  Notwithstanding the foregoing, new contributions may be directly invested in the self-directed brokerage account only following the Participant’s establishment of the account and transfer to the account from other investment funds of an investment of no less than $500.


APPROVED by the HARRIS CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE on this 8th day of September, 2016.
/s/ Adam Histed                                                          
Adam Histed, Chairperson






2
No. 58034.

protests 193575-K, etc. (New York).

#### M. J. & H. J. Meyer Co., Inc., and Inter-Ocean Forwarding Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar 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 importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 50084.

#### Protests 979631-G, etc., of Theo. L. Stern & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the beads in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), the merchandise in question was held dutiable as claimed.
```
**Exhibit 32.02

                            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 Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Kenneth G.C. Telford    
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Chief Financial Officer
June 19, 2006

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
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
#### Insurance Company of North America, Respondent, v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 478]

—Appeal by the defendant Aetna Casualty & Surety Company from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated July 8, 1994, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered July 15, 1994.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further;

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, for reasons stated by Justice Becker at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.
No. 54684.

#### Chan Kee Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 101074-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 8644)

Entry No. 802619.

#### The Singer Manufacturing Company *v.*United States

(Decided September 14, 1956)

*Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawkence, Judge:

Plaintiff, by this appeal for a reappraisement raises the question of the proper dutiable value of certain sewing-machine lights and lamps imported from Canada.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that there was no foreign, export, or United States value for such or similar merchandise and that the costs of production for such merchandise were the unit invoice prices, plus an additional 8 per centum for profit, plus the costs of packing.

*503Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the sewing-machine lights and lamps in issue, and that said value is the unit invoice prices, plus an additional 8 per centum for profit, plus the costs of packing.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(V.D. 105)

#### Herman H. Sticht Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 43557, etc.

(Decided November 16, 1959)

*Strauss & Seáges*for tbe plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The cases enumerated in schedule A, attached to and made part of this decision, are before the court on remand from a classification proceeding decided by the second division of this court in *Herman H. Sticht Co., Inc., and Intra-Mar Transport Corp. et al.,*41 Cust. Ct. 396, Abstract 62425, wherein the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement pursuant to provisions of title 28 U.S.C. section 2636 (d).

By stipulation of the parties to these proceedings, it has been agreed that the market value or the price of the instruments and cases herein, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was as set forth in schedule B, attached to and made a part of the judgment herein. It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the speed indicators and cases therefor covered by the remand of protests in issue and that such value is as indicated in schedule B referred to, supra,

*457I further find such values to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 50086.

#### Protest 40177-K of Goodhand-Grafmuller, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

When the case was called for trial the Government examiner testified that he had examined the invoices involved and found certain gloves thereon to be the same as those represented by exhibit 1 in *United States*v. *Aris Cloves, Inc.*(31 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 268), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the merchandise in question was held dutiable as claimed.
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

Stipulation and Order Dismissing Claims 

of the Fourth Cause of Action 1

BRIAN J. McCAFFREY, ESQ.

523 Octavia Street

San Francisco, California 94102

(State Bar #71861)

(415) 431-3472

Facsimile: (415) 552-2703

Attorney for Defendant,

ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELISE KING, No. CIV.S-04-1902 LKK PAN PS

 

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER 

 DISMISSING CLAIMS OF THE 

vs. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION OF 

THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION, 

BRUCE DORPALEN, Director of Housing, 

in his individual and official capactiy; LEZ 

TRUJILLO, Western Regional Supervisor,

in her individual and official capacity.

 

Defendants. 

_____________________________________/

The parties hereto stipulate as follows:

Whereas the claims stated in the Fourth Cause of Action of the First Amended

Complaint are also the subject of a judgment in the Superior Court of Sacramento County

(Case No. 04CM00161), and

Whereas defendant ACORN Housing Corporation has agreed to pay the amount of

that judgment in full,

Plaintiff, Elise King, hereby stipulates that the claims stated in the Fourth Cause of

//

//

Case 2:04-cv-01902-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 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

26

27

28

Stipulation and Order Dismissing Claims 

of the Fourth Cause of Action 2

Action of the First Amended Complaint are withdrawn and will be considered dismissed.

Dated: 4/29/05 /S/ 

Elise King, pro se

Dated: 4/29/05 /S/ 

Brian J. McCaffrey, attorney for

defendant, ACORN Housing Corporation

ORDER

It is so ordered.

Dated: May 11, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01902-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 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

26

27

28 PROOF OF SERVICE 3

Elise King v. Acorn Housing Corporation, et al.

CIV.S-04-1902 LKKPAN PS

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

[1013(a), 2015.5 C.C.P]

I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause. I am a

resident of and employed in the City and County of San Francisco, where the mailing

occurred; my business address is 523 Octavia Street, San Francisco, California 94102. I

served the within:

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS OF THE FOURTH CAUSE

OF ACTION OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

on the following person(s) on the date set forth below, by placing a true copy thereof

enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Post

Office mail box at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:

Elise King

10155 O’Meara Drive

Sacramento, CA 95829

I certify or declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on May 11, 2005 at San Francisco, California.

 /S/ 

Maria Rocio Sanchez

Case 2:04-cv-01902-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 05/12/05 Page 3 of 3
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4636 

To require reporting on offerors that have denied requests for uncertified 

cost or pricing data. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2024 

Mr. PETERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require reporting on offerors that have denied requests 

for uncertified cost or pricing data. 

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 ‘‘Contract Pricing Data 

5 Transparency Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO REPORT OFFERORS THAT HAVE 

7 DENIED REQUESTS FOR UNCERTIFIED COST 

8 OR PRICING DATA. 

9 Section 3705(b)(2)(B) of title 10, United States 

10 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘may include a notation on 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4636 IS

1 such offerors in the system used by the Federal Govern2 ment to monitor or record contractor past performance’’ 

3 and inserting ‘‘shall include an entry on such offerors in 

4 the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Informa5 tion System within the System for Award Management’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

DAVID A. CARRASCO

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

BARBARA A. MORRIS, State Bar No. 137680

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 322-3870

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Cowan, Schwartz, Cry,

Norris and Cullen

48149286 SA2005300092

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al. ,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV-S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

 ORDER

Currently before the court is defendants’ request for a protective order staying

discovery until the court has ruled on the pending motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a thirty

(30) day extension for Defendant Cry to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Upon

consideration by this court and good cause appearing,

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 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

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion for a protective order staying

discovery pending the court’s ruling on their motion to dismiss is granted.

Dated: August 8, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 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

 

MAY MORAN, No. CIV. S-04-2461 DFL DAD

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE DISPOSITION AFTER

 NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

ALEX'S TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Defendant. 

 /

The court has been advised by Lawrence Ball, Esq.,

plaintiff's attorney, that this action has been settled. 

Therefore, it is not necessary that the action remain upon the

court's active calendar. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That counsel file settlement/dismissal documents, in

accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160, no later

than December 27, 2005, and,

//

Case 2:04-cv-02461-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 12/13/05 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

2. That all hearing dates previously set in this matter

are vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 12/13/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02461-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 12/13/05 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

27

28

1. People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970). A Marsden motion is a motion to substitute

counsel. 

[Proposed] Order 

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

ROBERT R. ANDERSON

Chief Assistant Attorney General

MARY JO GRAVES

Senior Assistant Attorney General

BRIAN R. MEANS

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

STEPHEN G. HERNDON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

PAUL E. O’CONNOR

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 170829

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-5290

Fax: (916) 324-2960

Email: Paul.OConnor@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Respondent

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILDARDO RAMIREZ-MORALES,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-2365 DFL CMK P

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the “Marsden” transcripts1/ and the probation report are ordered

sealed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: June 23, 2005 /s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

 Craig M. Kellison

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02365-JKS-CMK Document 15 Filed 06/24/05 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

[Proposed] Order 

2

Case 2:04-cv-02365-JKS-CMK Document 15 Filed 06/24/05 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

WESLEY RUSSELL, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2244 FCD GGH P

vs.

CHARLES PLUMMER,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

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

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

On September 2, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

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

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

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

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02244-FCD-GGH Document 22 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 2, 2005, are adopted in

full; and 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed January 31, 2005, is granted; 

3. In the alternative, the petition is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b) and for petitioner’s failure to prosecute.

DATED:September 28, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02244-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0607

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SETH ANDREW KELLER-KEITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 2 2023

02/02/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0607
No. 49193.

#### Protests 34478-K, etc., of F. M. Nonaka & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the commodity in question is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) this claim was sustained.
No. 62586.

#### Commodore Manufacturing Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 327644-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.