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













October 18, 2016




Nadeem Velani (978330)
4721 6 Street SW
Calgary AB
T2S 2N2


Dear Nadeem,


I am pleased to inform you that the Board of Directors has approved your position as Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer and an increase to your compensation package effective October 18, 2016.


Your annual base salary will increase to $415,000.  Your target award level under the Short Term Incentive will remain at 60% of your base salary and your Long Term Incentive opportunity will continue to be 115% of your base salary.  As a result, the expected value of your total compensation package (base salary, STIP and LTIP) will increase to $1,141,250 annually. 


Ownership Guidelines 
By September 2021, you are required to achieve an ownership level equivalent to 2 times your annual salary. To help you meet your ownership requirements, the Company has a voluntary incentive deferral program. Annually, you may elect to defer all or a portion of your STIP payment into DSUs up to your ownership level. The Company will provide a 25% match, i.e., one DSU will be awarded for every four DSUs acquired with your STIP deferral. The matched units will only be provided if you are below your ownership level. 


Terms of Employment
All other terms and conditions of your employment remain unchanged. Your participation in the Plans mentioned above is governed by the appropriate Plan document, detailing the Plan terms and conditions. These terms and conditions may be revised at any time at the discretion of the Company.  


Congratulations Nadeem! CP’s transformation to date has been impressive and I know that you will continue to be a significant contributor to helping us achieve even more in the future.






Sincerely,


/s/ E. Hunter Harrison


E. Hunter Harrison
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH STOVALL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S- 04-2364 LKK PAN P

vs.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, 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 June 3, 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-02364-LKK -PAN Document 10 Filed 08/05/05 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 June 3, 2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. Petitioner’s federal petition is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: August 5, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/stov2364.801

Case 2:04-cv-02364-LKK -PAN Document 10 Filed 08/05/05 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

 Brad Espinoza is substituted as respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules

Governing § 2254 Proceedings; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Rueben Roberts,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2232 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

Brad Espinoza, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoOctober 20, 2004, petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding

without counsel, filed an application for a writ of habeas

corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. December 10, 2004, I granted

petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered

respondent1 to respond to the petition. April 5, 2005,

petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

challenging the same judgment but since he did not write the case

number on it the Clerk of the Court opened a new case. See

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 16 Filed 11/30/05 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

2

Roberts v. Carey, Civ. S 05-0662 GEB PAN P. April 7, 2005,

respondent filed a motion to dismiss in this case. August 31,

2005, I directed the Clerk of the Court to place the petition in

the file for this case. 

I construe the April 5, 2005, application as an amended

petition and since respondent has not answered, petitioner filed

it as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

I therefore deny respondent’s April 7, 2005, motion to

dismiss without prejudice and direct respondent to respond to

petitioner’s first-amended application within 60 days. See Rule

4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be

accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents

relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the

application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30

days of service of an answer. If the response to petitioner’s

application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement of

non-opposition shall be filed and served within 30 days of

service of the motion, and respondent’s reply, if any, shall be

filed within 15 days thereafter. The Clerk of the Court shall

serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner’s

April 5, 2005, first-amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 16 Filed 11/30/05 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

3

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves, Senior Assistant

Attorney General for the State of California.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 16 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 3
MICHAEL B. BIGELOW

Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 65211

428 J Street, Suite 350

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-0217

Attorney for Defendant

Joshua Phillips

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT KENAN, Warden

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV S-04-1257 GEB GGH P

ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

petitioner’s Traverse shall be due on August 21, 2005.

Dated: 8/30/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

Hon. Gregory G. Hollows

Magistrate Judge 

phil1257.eot(2)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 51394.

#### Protest 106439-K of Denton’s, Inc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the first hearing the appraiser of merchandise testified that the instant merchandise was in part of fiouncings. However, the record established that the involved merchandise is not in any part of either tuckings or fiouncings, but that it consists of cotton wearing apparel. On the record presented it was held that the merchandise described on the invoice as “120 Short Cotton Skirts” is properly dutiable at 37)4 percent under paragraph 919 as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 8518)

#### Hoenig Plywood Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 716470, etc.

(Decided January 12, 1956)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between counsel, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1. That the price at which all the items on the invoices covered by the above-enumerated appeals, excepting size 48" x 96" on the invoice covered by Reap. No. 261524-A, on and about the dates of exportation, were freely sold and offered for sale for exportation to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, packed ready for shipment, was the appraised value less $0.70 per thousand square feet, and that there was no higher foreign market value therefor.

> 2. That Reap. No. 261524-A is abandoned in so far as it relates to size 48" x 96".

> 3. That the appeals may be submitted.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, excepting as to size 48'' x 96" on the invoice covered by reappraisement 261524-A, and that such values were the appraised values, less $0.70 per thousand square feet.

*505Reappraisement 261524-A having been abandoned insofar as it relates to size 48" x 96", to that extent tbe appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

May 15, 1947

No. 51708.

#### Protest 8838-K of Oliviero E. Olivieri (New York).

*195Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith 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

 I N T H E U N I T E D S T A TES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDY ADAMS and HEATHER ADAMS, CIV. NO. S-04-0979 DFL CMK

husband and wife, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

et al.,

Defendants.

 / RELATED CASE ORDER

In re: TREVOR DEAN ADAMS and

SHANNON DOREEN ADAMS, Bankruptcy Petition No.:

05-37300-A-7

Debtors, DCN: USA-2

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TREVOR DEAN ADAMS, and

SHANNON DOREEN ADAMS, also

known as "Shannon D. Hatfield"

fdba TS Livestock,

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:04-cv-00979-JAM -CMK Document 55 Filed 04/13/06 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

2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CIV. NO. S-06-0637 LKK

Plaintiff,

v.

TREVOR DEAN ADAMS and

SHANNON DOREEN ADAMS,

Defendants.

 /

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that 

these actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 83-123

(E.D. Cal. 2005). Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to

the same judge and magistrate judge is likely to effect a

substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be

convenient for the parties.

The parties should be aware that relating the cases under

Local Rule 83-123 merely has the result that these actions are

assigned to the same judge and magistrate judge; no consolidation

of the actions is effected. Under the regular practice of this

court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and

magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated CIV. NO.

S-06-0637 LKK be reassigned to Judge David F. Levi and Magistrate

Craig M. Kellison for all further proceedings, and any dates

currently set in this reassigned case only are hereby VACATED.

The parties are referred to the attached Order Requiring Joint

Status Report. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the

reassigned case shall be shown as CIV. NO. S-06-0637 DFL CMK.

//

Case 2:04-cv-00979-JAM -CMK Document 55 Filed 04/13/06 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

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make

appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to

compensate for this reassignment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2006

 

/s/ David F. Levi 

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00979-JAM -CMK Document 55 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS WAYNE PERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL ZUPAN et al.,

Defendants.

CIV S-04-0868 DFL PAN (JFM)

ORDER

—NFN—

On March 17, 2006, the District Judge adopted this court’s November 10,

2005 findings and recommendations and denied the motion for summary judgment filed April 7,

2005 by Paul and Suzie Zupan in this patent infringement case.

On April 14, 2006, Paul and Suzie Zupan, who proceed in pro se, filed a

second motion for summary judgment and set the matter for hearing on May 18, 2006. 

Defendants’ second motion raises the same issues presented in their first motion and was filed in

response to the temporary reassignment of this case to another Magistrate Judge. Since this court

has already addressed the substantive issues presented by defendants’ motion, the matter is

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00868-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 05/04/06 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

2

VACATED from this court’s May 18, 2006 calendar and defendants’ motion filed April 14, 2006

is DENIED as moot.

A scheduling order has yet to be issued in this case. The “joint” status report

filed March 17, 2005 by plaintiff and defendant Latitude Financial, Inc., did not include the

participation of defendants Paul and Suzie Zupan and was filed prior to this court’s resolution of

the Zupan’s motion for summary judgment. A new status report is required.

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby directed to prepare, in cooperation with all

defendants, a joint status report setting forth the following matters, and SHALL FILE SUCH

REPORT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER:

(a) Jurisdiction and venue;

(b) Anticipated motions;

(c) Anticipated discovery and disclosure of expert witnesses;

(d) Future proceedings, including setting appropriate deadlines for discovery,

motions, and scheduling the pretrial conference and trial;

(e) Estimate of length of trial;

(f) Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to

the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or 

proceedings;

(g) Whether the case is related to any other case, including any matter in

bankruptcy;

(h) Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled;

(I) Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of

this matter.

Parties appearing without counsel are advised that even though the court will

construe their pleadings liberally, the court requires them to comply with all procedural rules

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00868-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 05/04/06 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

3

governing this action. Failure to obey the federal rules of procedure and local rules and orders of

this court, may result in dismissal of this action.

DATED: May 3, 2006.

006:perr0868.ord

Case 2:04-cv-00868-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 65517.

#### Lafair & Sons Co. and Harper, Robinson & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/8098 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise identified as item 116 is in chief value of paper and that the *445Issue is the same as that the subject of Abstract 63552, the claim of the plaintiffs 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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a ) 2:04-cv-0809-GEB-PAN

Washington corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

v. ) CONTINUING FINAL PRETRIAL

) CONFERENCE

CALIFORNIA MICRO COMPUTERS, INC., )

a/k/a CA-MICRO a/k/a ADVANCED )

CONCEPTS, a California corporation;)

and JAMES R. SCOTT, an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

CALIFORNIA MICRO COMPUTERS, INC., )

a/k/a CA-MICRO a/k/a ADVANCED )

CONCEPTS, a California corporation;)

and JAMES R. SCOTT, an individual, )

)

Defendants and )

Third Party Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

GLOBAL TRADING INTERNATIONAL, )

INC., COMPWAVES, )

)

Third Party Defendants. )

)

The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed November 19,

2004, set the Final Pretrial Conference in this case for October 17,

2005, and required that a Joint Pretrial Statement (JPS) be filed “not

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN Document 35 Filed 10/14/05 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

1 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the

faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon

clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

later than seven days prior to the final pretrial conference.” 

(Status Order at 6.) Third-Party Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) filed an

untimely “Joint Pretrial Statement” on October 12, 2005, which ThirdParty Defendants (“Defendants”) did not join. Defendants have not

filed a pretrial statement. Due to the parties' failure to file a JPS

as ordered, the Final Pretrial Conference is reset to November 21,

2005, at 1:30 p.m.

The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE (OSC), by filing

written statements, not later than 4:00 p.m. on November 14, 2005, why

the Court should not issue sanctions under Rule 16(f) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure for Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely

pretrial statement as ordered and Defendants’ failure to file a

pretrial statement. Further, Defendants are ordered to show cause

why the Third-Party Complaint should not be dismissed as Plaintiffs

request. The written responses should indicate whether the parties or

their counsel are at fault for the failure to file a JPS and whether a

hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will

be held at the time of the Final Pretrial Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 13, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN Document 35 Filed 10/14/05 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

TIMOTHY O’KEEFE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2277 DFL JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT DIEBALL, 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 May 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a second extension of time to

respond to defendants’ March 14, 2005 motion to dismiss and for court-ordered access to the

prison law library. In said motion, plaintiff contends, inter alia, that he has been separated from

“98% of his legal work including defendants’ motion to dismiss” since his transfer to Salinas

Valley State Prison. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02277-DFL -JFM Document 31 Filed 06/06/05 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days from the

date of this order defendants shall respond to the contentions in plaintiff’s May 12, 2005 motion

concerning access to his legal property and to the prison law library. 

DATED: June 3, 2005.

12/kf

okee2277.36a+ 

Case 2:04-cv-02277-DFL -JFM Document 31 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 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 this Quarterly Report of CI Sell Cars, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Curtis
Hunsinger, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/ Curtis Hunsinger
--------------------------
Curtis Hunsinger
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

March 12, 2004
Case No. 15,078.

#### UNITED STATES v. FAW.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 486.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1808.

Justice or Peace—Indictment fob Illegally Taking Bail—Gross Ignorance—Intent.

A justice of the peace cannot discharge a prisoner who has been committed for trial on a charge of felony; nor can he take money in lieu ■of bail. But he is not liable for so discharging the prisoner, unless he did it contemptuously -and wilfully, and with evil intent.

[Cited in Reinhard v. Columbus, 49 Ohio, 207, 31 N. E. 35.]

Indictment for misdemeanor in office of justice of the peace in taking the personal recognizance of Harry Allen, in the sum of one hundred dollars, charged with theft of goods to the amount of sixty dollars, and receiving one hundred dollars in cash in lieu of bail of security.

E. J. Lee and C. Lee, for defendant,

contended that the justice acted judicially, and that it was an error in judgment for which he is not liable to answer criminally, and that he lias a right to take the money; and cited Cro. Car. 44G.

Mr. Jones, U. S. Atty.,

contended that it is not necessary to show a corrupt motive, but that the defendant is liable for gross ignorance. He acted ministerially, and if it be .a palpably illegal act, he is punishable.

E. J. Lee, for defendant.

A justice of the .peace is not liable unless he acts from corrupt motives. Rex v. Jackson, 1 Term R. <353. .He has a right to bail after commitment, and ■to discharge without habeas corpus.

C. Lee prayed the court to instruct the jury that if they should be satisfied by the evidence, that the defendant acted uprightly and without corrupt. motives, he ought to be acquitted, and so unless they should be satisfied by the evidence that he did it contemptuously.

Mr. Jones, contra.

The defendant had no right to discharge at all after commitment; and no authority to take money as a deposit in lieu of bail for a person charged with felony.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(DUCKETT, Circuit Judge, absent)

said they had no doubt on those points. The justice of peace cannot discharge after commitment for trial, nor can he take money in lieu of bail.

THE COURT (DUCKETT, Circuit Judge, absent) instructed the jury that unless they should be satisfied that the acts were done contemptuously, wilfully, and with an evil intent, they ought not to find the defendant guilty. (The words “wilfully” and “contemptuously” were used in the indictment.) The jury found a special verdict, that Faw acted illegally, in taking the money in lieu of bail, and in discharging the traverser from imprisonment; but he thus acted through ignorance and mistake of the law, and without any sinister or corrupt motive.

Judgment for the traverser on the verdict. DUCKETT, Circuit Judge, absent.
No. 47879.

#### Protests 86698-K, etc., of Chesebro Robbins & Graham, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the frozen frogs’ legs in question are similar to those the subject of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610), the claim that they are dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1558, less 20 percent under T. D. 47232, was sustained.