alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10(ix)


                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                   EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN

                           Effective November 1, 1999


(g) Executive shall be entitled to retirement benefits under the Corporation's
Executive Special Supplemental Benefit program ("SRP") operated in accordance
with the Corporation's Supplemental Benefit Plan, whether or not Executive
shall have attained age 60 or shall have been credited with five years of
service, and the SRP Forfeiture provisions shall not apply. SRP retirement
benefits, determined under the SRP and paragraph (c) above, are payable in a
lump sum or commencing at age 65, or reduced at or after age 60, in accordance
with SRP provisions. This paragraph (g) does not apply to SRP death benefits.
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, PAGE 1 

#707791 

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

Jeffrey S. Salisbury, CA SB#112033 

LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY S. SALISBURY 

4725 Village Plaza Loop, Ste 200 

Eugene, OR 97401 

Phone: (541) 345-7007 

Fax: (541) 342-5213 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Donna Y. Perigo, individually and on behalf 

of her Individual Retirement Account, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Terrence L. Hoffer, M.D.; Terrence L. Hoffer, 

M.D., Inc. Profit Sharing Plan; and Terrence 

L. Hoffer, M.D., a professional corporation 

aka Terrence L. Hoffer, M.D., Inc., 

 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: CIVS 04-1964 FCD DAD 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL 

The parties having advised the Court that they have settled this matter, they hereby 

stipulate through their designated counsel that the above-captioned action be, and hereby is, 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1). Each party shall bear her, his or its 

own costs and fees, except as the parties may have otherwise agreed. 

SO STIPULATED: 

Dated: 7/12/05 /s/ Jeffrey S. Salisbury

 Jeffrey S. Salisbury 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: 7/7/05 /s/ Robert F. Schwartz

Robert F. Schwartz 

 Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:04-cv-01964-FCD-DAD Document 18 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, PAGE 2 

#707791 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01964-FCD-DAD Document 18 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CORPORATE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 16  GLOBAL INCORPORATED
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Corporate Property Associates 16-Global
Incorporated;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly
report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 8/14/2006
    
    /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisDate
    
    Mark J. DeCesarisacting Chief 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

27

28

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

G. PATRICK JENNINGS

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-0683

Telephone: (202) 307-6648

FACSIMILE: (202) 307-0054 

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

KEVIN ALLEN CARDOZA )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

Civil No. CIV-S-04-2429 WBS DAD

UNITED STATES’ THIRD EX PARTE

REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, and

ORDER

Date: May 6, 2005

Time: 11 a.m.

Court: 27

The Court set a scheduling conference on May 6, 2005, at 11 a.m. before the Honorable

Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. The United States has filed a motion for summary judgment

which, if granted, would resolve this entire case. The argument for the motion for summary

judgment is scheduled for June 10, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. Undersigned counsel suggests that the

motion is very likely to resolve this entire case. The United States requests that the scheduling

conference set for May 6, 2005, be rescheduled for June 10, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. If this request is

granted, only one appearance will be necessary, conserving judicial resources.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02429-WBS-DAD Document 34 Filed 05/02/05 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 -

The United States requests an order in accordance with the foregoing.

Respectfully submitted this 28rd day of April, 2005.

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

 /s/ G. Patrick Jennings 

G. PATRICK JENNINGS

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Post Office Box 683

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 307-6648

Facsimile: (202) 307-0054

IT IS ORDERED THAT the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference on May 6, 2005, at 11

a.m. is continued to June 10, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 27. 

DATED: April 29, 2005.

Ddad1/orders.civil/cardoza2429.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02429-WBS-DAD Document 34 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 2
November 15, 2012

Mr. David W. Sullivan

Balloonacy, Ltd., LLC School of Applied Aerostation

125 Redwood Circle

Fayetteville, GA 30214

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This is in response to your August 13, 2012 letter (Docket No. FAA-2012-0816) petitioning 

the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Balloonacy, Ltd., LLC School of Applied 

Aerostation (Balloonacy) to amend 14 CFR part 1, Definitions and Abbreviations, to include 

the definition for “Thermal Airship”. 

The definition for thermal airship, as proposed by the petitioner, would be an engine-driven 

lighter-than-air aircraft that can be steered, and derives its lift using an airborne heater. The

proposed amendment, if granted, would be the first step in the process of amending 14 CFR 

part 61, as necessary, to provide for pilot certification of thermal airship pilots within the 

United States regulatory structure.

The petition for rulemaking submitted by Balloonacy pertains to an aircraft certification issue

rather than a pilot certification issue. Part 1, section 1.1 defines an “Airship” as an enginedriven lighter-than-air aircraft that can be steered; the petitioner’s proposed term “Thermal 

Airship” currently meets that definition. Airmen certification for the privilege of operating 

an airship is clearly defined in 14 CFR part 61 for both private and commercial lighter-thanair airship. 

Aircraft, including airships, which are not manufactured to a type design, are not eligible for 

a standard airworthiness certificate. Aircraft that have been issued a special airworthiness 

certificate in the experimental category are restricted from certain types of operations. In 

§ 91.319(a), it states that no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental 

certificate for other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or carrying persons 

or property for compensation or hire. Aircraft that have a standard airworthiness certificate 

do not have the § 91.319(a) restriction.
2

When considering your petition for rulemaking, the FAA uses guidance outlined in 14 CFR 

§ 11.73. As stated in that section, the FAA uses the following criteria when making a 

decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking: 

1) immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) the priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) the resources we have available to address these issues. 

After reviewing the request for rulemaking submitted by Balloonacy, the FAA does not 

consider there is an immediate safety or security concern and does not have the available 

resources at this time to initiate this regulatory project at this time. Therefore, we will take 

no further action on this petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards

 Service
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

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 21, 2006, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. Process directed to defendant Mangis was returned unserved with the

notation, “unable to locate (no info).” Plaintiff must provide additional information to serve

these defendants. Plaintiff shall promptly seek such information through discovery, the

California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et seq., or other means available to

plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may

seek judicial intervention.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 103 Filed 05/26/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 forms,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed June 14, 2005;

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Mangis;

b. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed June 14, 2005; and

c. One completed summons form (if not previously provided) 

or show good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: May 25, 2006.

/mp/004

arms2136.8e(2)

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 103 Filed 05/26/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 forms

 2 copies of the June 14, 2005 

 Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 103 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 58051.

protests 170374-K, 151529-K, and 144893-K (Detroit).

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mes-chandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 535), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

March 4, 1952

No. 56447.

protests 175559-K, 175560-K, and 175561-K (New York).

#### Lawrence R. Small *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sin,cerelY, ~

."" / /

/1

Pierre M phy

IAttome for

, Lineas Aereas Suramericanas, S.A. ;'

Iattach herewith for filing an original executed Form OST F 1010.5 Designation of

Agent for Lineas Aereas Suramericanas ("LAS").

Dear Sir/Madame:

Re: Lineas Aereas Suramericanas, S.A.

Designation of Agent: Docket OST -Q2-12556

Attn: Chief

Documentary Services Division

Docket OST-02-12556

u.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

January 13,2014

TELEPHONE:(202) 776-3980 EMAIL:PMURPHY@LOPMURPHY.COM

TELECOPIER:(202) 776-3975

SUITE 800

1200 NEWHAMPSHIREAVENUE, N.W.

WASHINGTON,D.C. 20036-6802

PIERRE MURPHY

LAW OFFICES
." (..- .

.~

• -,',.!!,!' ".!!':.~.:__._~_ '!':.. .. __.', .••••. ! 't_' ... l~ __ .'\..:": ..... : .. ". ~-~ •• :.-:; .•__ ", :' .: ~ ••.• -. .•.• _•••• _,-._' •. ~."!'.~_

r OST , 111D.1(1-t1)

lllis

ATJ'EST:

icanas, S .A.

By:

of said company. and 10 be aaated under its corpora. seal by

L€oO~c> AL~l2 vltell .. t1I.(.(M~, 0f!t \ HqI(48='"

secretary. or ocher Title)

on lIIiI () ~ cloy of Jad-Ih..rtJ' .M -zot~ .

preseMllO be 'ipeel ia ill nameby luis Enrique Prieto GirS!'t. CfX) • Preside..

(Plcue Pr )

IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Lineas Aereas SUri!lnericanas, is.A. ,_ caused thac

(Nlme or c..... ) .

,Name ____ 1R__,~_~_.~~e~_~ ~_PH~7~..._ ~(uawl) __~I:,-f1~e==-- __

AcIdreu 1.200 New Himpshi.re Avenue, .NW, SUite 590'1 washi.n:]ton, OC 20036

The Aftlllso dcsi........... wriacn his aunc and 1110 his initials in die ~owinllJ*e:

NameofAptd Pierre ltnphy. Law Offices of Pierxj Mgphy

(Plcue Print) :

(Adclrcu)

hereby detiilnauel. punuanc 10r.cction .a610) of nile .19 01the.U .S. Code 'fO=' )'section 100" b, 0( lhe FcdmI A,·illm Acl

of 1"8. a".umendcd, the pmiOII named ~k.,,· as iCti A,.". upon ,,'hom lIm'icc IIIOIices and pIO&."eS.,. and all CII'Ik.-n... d«ision~.

and mluiremcnti of the Dcpartmcal ofTraMpOI1alion may be made for and on aU of ~id carrier. hmb)' cilllCClin.all ~:iau~

dnilllDli0n5 of AfClUs made by it 10die DOT. i

Avenida El Dorado N. 103-22, Entrada 2 In~ior 7, Bogo~, Co1anbia

office ..

(Name of Company. please prine)

• havin. ir, principal

ATTENTION: DOCKET SECTION. C-55

LINEM AEREAS SURAMERICANAS, S .A.

Chicf. nocumentary Services Div.

Depuunenr of Transporwion

Wuhiillton. D.C. 20590

DESIGNATION OF AGENT lOR

SERVICE OF NOTICE. PROCESS. ORDERS

DECISIONS AND REQUIItEM .NTS u.s.PI, ...........

OtraOl ~vOl iO'IlD'T:I"O'I

o
clerk's record filed on October 1, 2012, we DENY tion a 

Order issued Octobe , 2012 

In The 

(Court of Apprats 

'Sift jiDistrirt of &rxas at Dallas 

No. 05-10-01375-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF C.H.C. AND S.M.C. 

ORDER 

The Court has before it appellee's October 25, 2012 motion to file supplemental clerk's 

record. On September 21, 2012, counsel for appellee infonned the Court that she had requested the 

Collin County District Clerk to prepare a supplemental clerk's record containing certain documents. 

This Court filed that supplemental clerk's record on October 1, 2012. Appellee's current motion 

requests that this Court file a supplemental clerk's record containing the same documents included 

in the supplemental clerk's record filed on October 1, 2012. The motion does not appear to request 

the filing of any additional documents. Because those do ents were part of the supplemental 

MOSELEY 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.


SECTION
1350




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tongli
Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2010, I, Li Li, Chief
Financial Officer, 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. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Tongli Pharmaceuticals (USA),
Inc.





Dated:
August 16, 2010




/s/
      Li LiLi
      LiChief
      Financial Officer
POTW removal (%) = 0-90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate - strong

PBT Potential: P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow - moderate

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is moderate through the skin and GI tract and 

good through the lungs (pchem). Expect hydrolysis to release There is concern 

for oncogenicity and dermal and respiratory sensitization based on release of 

Low moderate concern.

 Ecotox:

Test 

Organism

Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.048-13.2

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.094-5.1

green algal 96-h EC50 0.287-22.1

fish _ chronic 

value

0.009-1.4

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.018-0.965

algal _ chronic 

value

0.128-10.3

Sewage 

Sludge

3-h EC50 _

Sewage 

Sludge

_ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR chemical class 

= MW liquid with unknown mp (P); log Kow = 2.6-6.2 (P); S < 7570 mg/L at 20 

C (M); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb) 

Acute 

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb) Chronic

1

SARs

SAR Class
TSCA New Chemcial 

Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: 

 Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor:
No. 62589.

#### Sphinx Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 329024-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.
Before the Second Division,

April 26, 1961

No. 65523.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 60/31176, 60/31180, and 60/31187 (Norfolk).

*446Opinion 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.
Before the Second Division,

June 26, 1940

No. 44032.

#### Protests 272340-G, etc., of Central Madeira Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel filet laces and lace articles were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430, *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 C. C. P. A. 77, T. D. 47065 and *Pustet*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396) followed. Napkins and towels in chief value of flax were held dutiable at 55 percent under paragraph 1014, and those in chief value of vegetable fibers other than cotton at 40 percent under paragraph 1021. *United States*v. *Macksoud*(27 C. C. P. A. 218, C. A. D. 87) followed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v KENNETH E. BEASLEY, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

20 USCMA 122, 42 CMR 314

No. 23,029

November 6, 1970

*123
      *Colonel Daniel T. Ghent*and *Captain Monte Engler*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Edwin P. Wasinger*and *Captain Glenn R. Bonard*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused’s claim of error in regard to the acceptance of his plea of guilty to several offenses in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is without merit for the reasons specified in our opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date.

During sentence proceedings, the judge received evidence of the accused’s record of punishment under Article 15, Code, supra, 10 USC § 815. Since the offense charged was committed before the effective date of the 1969 Manual for Courts-Martial, which authorized consideration of such evidence, the record should not have been considered. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970). In view of the nature and number of the previous acts of misconduct and near maximum punishment imposed upon the accused, we are unable to conclude that the error did not result in prejudice to him. United States v Worrell, 19 USCMA 487, 42 CMR 89 (1970). Accordingly, the decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed as to the sentence. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the Court of Military Review to redetermine the sentence.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part):

I concur in part and dissent in part.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this case that the plea of guilty was properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970). The military judge’s failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in Palos, supra.

I agree with their determination that the sentence must be reassessed because of the erroneous consideration of evidence of punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 815. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970); United States v Worrell, 19 USCMA 487, 42 CMR 89 (1970).
Before the First Division,

April 7, 1949

No. 53002.

#### G. D. Searle & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 137678-K, etc. (New York).

*280Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the concentrated ox gall the subject of *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.