alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

BECKHAM, LISA

From: Richard.Grimes@aps.com

Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 9:04 AM

To: Lee, Anita

Subject: Response to Rain pH question from UFW

Attachments: Copy of pH_calcs_precip.xlsx

Recent data from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) 2012 summary 

(http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/data/2012as.pdf) displays an annual average pH of 5.5 for precipitation in the northwestern 

part of New Mexico (to the east of the project area). A conservative estimate of rain pH could be made by using a pH of 

5.5 as a starting point and adding the hydronium ion concentration from modeling to the annual rainfall without 

considering any buffering from particulates. If we assume that the average annual precipitation for the Farmington, NM, 

area is 8.59 inches per year* (21.8 cm/yr) with a starting precipitation pH of 5.5, then add the total hydronium ion 

equivalents deposited on the soil (worst case of 0.0047 hydronium ion equivalents equivalents/m2/yr based on modeled 

deposition), the resulting pH suppression would be 0.9 (or a change in pH value by -0.9) for a precipitation pH of 4.6. 

This is conservative because: 

· It does not account for buffering that occurs in the precipitation. Water droplets in the air, especially in the west, form 

around and collect dust particles that are often composed of calcium compounds and other buffering agents before 

coming to the earth as precipitation. This causes pH buffering resulting in a higher pH. 

· This calculation includes the deposition of all acidic deposition form Four Corners Power Plant not just the increase in 

H2SO4 emissions resulting from the installation of SCR. 

· This calculation assumes all acid deposition is wet deposition. In reality, only a fraction of the acid deposition is wet 

deposition due to limited rainfall in the area. Therefore the impact on precipitation pH would be much less. 

 

Given that the total amount of acid-forming compounds emitted from the FCPP will be much less in the future due to the 

shutdown of Units 1, 2, and 3, the future impacts from acidic compounds deposited in the region will be less than historic 

conditions. The small amount of acid-forming compounds coming from FCPP would not result in anything close to 

precipitation of pH 3.0 reported by Neufeld to cause foliar damage to plants. 

 

* http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/farmington/new-mexico/united-states/usnm0109

 

 

 

--- NOTICE --- 

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary 

information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and 

any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail. Although 

we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for 

any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in 

the contents which result from e-mail transmission.
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

MARVELLOUS A. GREENE, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1983 FCD KJM P

vs.

CASTRO,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed May 2, 2006, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to file

an amended complaint. On June 20, 2006 plaintiff was granted a thirty day extension of time. 

The time granted to plaintiff within which to file an amended complaint has expired, and plaintiff

has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 2:04-cv-01983-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 29, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/mp

gree1983.fta

Case 2:04-cv-01983-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2
EPA, California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory 

Authority (PMRA) discuss imidacloprid pollinator field studies with Bayer CropScience (Bayer)

Monday December 16, 2013

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR): Ann Prichard, Liz Pelham, Denise Alder, 

Rich Bireley, John Troiano, Jill Townzen, Marylou Verder-Carlos, 

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Authority (PMRA): Connie Hart, Wayne Hou, Tina Singal, 

Mary Mitchell, Nicole Lauro, Barbara Martinovic-Barrett 

Bayer CropScience: David Fischer, Clive Halder, Lisa Bowers, Allen Olmstead, Jeff Parsons, Pete Cody,

Dana Sergeant 

EPA: Rusty Wasem, Tom Moriarty, Neil Anderson, Steven Snyderman, Keith Sappington, Anita Pease, 

Don Brady, Clayton Myers, Elizabeth Hill, Michael Wagman, TJ Wyatt, Carissa Cyran, Meghan Radtke, 

Michelle Ranville, Frank Faruggia 

All three Agencies participated in a conference call with Bayer to discuss upcoming pollinator field 

effects studies required to support the registration review of imidacloprid. Rationales for requiring the 

studies and timing of the studies were discussed as were how the Agencies intend to use the studies for 

risk assessment and risk management.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1778-1779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-404]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on 
Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a 
meeting on January 31, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that 
relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the 
ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

[[Page 1779]]

Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related 
matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam 
Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only 
during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
Michael R. Snodderly,
Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 [FR Doc. E7-404 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
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

MABLE PETE, No. CIV.S-04-2301 DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

 /

The application and proposed order granting substitution of

attorney submitted by plaintiff and her counsel is hereby denied. 

Since the application, if granted, would leave plaintiff proceeding

pro se in this matter, counsel must seek “leave of Court upon noticed

motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have

appeared.” Local Rule 83-182(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddad1/orders.consent/pete2301.sub

Case 2:04-cv-02301-DAD Document 32 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                                           DAIN RAUSCHER CORPORATION

                                  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                        PERCENTAGE
                                                                        OF VOTING
                                                     STATE IN WHICH    SECURITIES
                             NAME                     INCORPORATED        OWNED
                             ----                    --------------     ----------
<S>                                                 <C>              <C>
Consolidated subsidiaries of Registrant:

   Dain Rauscher Incorporated..........................Delaware          100%
   Insight Investment Management Inc...................Minnesota         100
   Dain Rauscher Lending Services Inc..................Minnesota         100

</TABLE>

                                      51
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6498

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANIEL AREVALO-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (7:09-cr-00097-FL-2; 7:11-cv-00161-FL)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Arevalo-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis 

Boyle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Arevalo-Hernandez seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Arevalo-Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:04-cv-01657-AK

ORDER

Marshall’s motion for clarification filed on February 3, 2010 (docket entry 187) is granted in

part and denied in part. The request for clarification of the deadlines for submitting trial briefs and

motions in limine is denied because these deadlines are already specified in my January 26, 2010 order

(docket entry 185). Marshall’s other requests for clarification are granted. Requested jury instructions

shall be lodged with the clerk and served on all parties pursuant to Local Rule 51-163. Completed

subpoenas must be submitted not earlier than four weeks and not later than two weeks before trial. 

Marshall’s motion for clarification filed on March 22, 2010 (docket entry 189) is denied as moot

in light of this order. His motion for clarification filed on December 28, 2009 (docket entry 176) is

denied because this court will not entertain motions for clarification that request general legal advice.

Finally, Marshall’s renewed motion to compel production of various things filed on December

28, 2009 (docket entry 176) is denied for the reasons given by my December 23, 2009 order (docket

entry 175).

A

ALEX KOZINSKI

Chief Circuit Judge

Sitting by designation

April 6, 2010

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 190 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER THEREON

1

BOHN & BOHN LLP

ROBERT H. BOHN, ESQ. - State Bar #36283

152 N. Third Street, Suite 200

San Jose, California 95112

Telephone: (408) 279-4222

Fax No.: (408) 295-2222

A tto rn e ys f o r Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

PAMELA E. FISHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NORTH AMERICA,

Defendant.

/

No. CIV S-04-2195 MCE GGH 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

AND ORDER THEREON

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through

their designated counsel that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed with

prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1).

Dated: 4/11/2005 BOHN & BOHN LLP

 /s/ 

BY: ROBERT H. BOHN, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff PAMELA FISHER

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02195-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 04/18/05 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

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER THEREON

2

Dated: 4/12/2005 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

 /s/ 

BY: CAROLYN A. KNOX

Attorney for Defendant

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NORTH AMERICA

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: April 18, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02195-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 2
(V.D. 107)

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

Entry No. 58397.

(Decided November 16, 1959)

*Strauss & Sedges*for the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by virtue of the judgment issued by the second division of this court in the case of *Herman H. Sticht Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*41 Cust. Ct. 376, Abstract 62363, wherein the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of title 28 U.S.C. section 2636(d).

The parties to this proceeding have stipulated and agreed that the market value or the price of the instruments and cases involved 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 follows:

> Entry # Swiss

> Protest No. Daté francs ea.

> 306018-35/5691 58397 96 pcs #.620 Tachometers 68.00

> 3-22-55 Accessories 12.20

> Engravings 0.50

> Oases 12.20

It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that export value, as such 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 ta*459chometers and cases therefor covered by this remand of protest and that such value is as tabulated in the preceding paragraph of this decision.

I further find and hold that such values are the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

As to all other merchandise, the remand is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424

Acting Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

ROBERT RAMESES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RAMESES,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. Civ. S-04-1173 GEB GGH P

REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR

FILING TRAVERSE; ORDER

Judge: Hon. Gregory G. Hollows

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-142, Petitioner, ROBERT RAMESES, by and

through his counsel, Assistant Federal Defender David M. Porter, 

hereby requests an extension of 30 days in which to file the traverse, 

which is currently due on February 27, 2006. 

This extension is the first extension requested and it is being

sought because of the undersigned’s duties in other cases, including

filing objections to findings and recommendations, and two appellate

reply briefs.

This extension is not interposed to unduly delay the proceedings,

to gain unfair advantage, or for any other improper purpose. The

undersigned attempted to contact respondent's counsel, but the call has

not yet been returned. Accordingly, petitioner requests this Court

Case 2:04-cv-01173-GEB -GGH Document 41 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

enter the order lodged with this request.

Dated: February 24, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

DANIEL J. BRODERICK

Acting Federal Defender

 /s/ David M. Porter 

DAVID M. PORTER

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Petitioner

ROBERT RAMESES

O R D E R

Pursuant to the request of petitioner, and good cause appearing

therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that the traverse may be filed on or

before March 29, 2006.

DATED: 3/1/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________ 

 

HONORABLE GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

rame1173.po

Case 2:04-cv-01173-GEB -GGH Document 41 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2
**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 Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
      Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully comply 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/
                Gabriel KabazoGabriel
                Kabazo, Chief Financial OfficerDated:
                August 14, 2008
No. 51422.

#### Protests 99566-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., et al. (Galveston, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

ANDREW DURAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0867 GEB KJM P

vs.

CLAUDE FINN,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve a traverse. Good

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s June 22, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

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

serve a traverse.

DATED: July 11, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/bb

dura0867.111t

Case 2:04-cv-00867-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 1
#                 Book/Printed Material                Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania : country studiesEstonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
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

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Sanford v. Jo Ann Fabrics #1568, et al.

 CIV. S 04-2046 LKK PAN

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ARTHUR LETTENMAIER, SBN 186857

BROWN WINFIELD & CANZONERI, INC.

300 SOUTH GRAND AVE., SUITE 1500

LOS ANGELES, CA 90017

Telephone: (213) 687-2100

Fax: (213) 687-2149

Attorney for Defendant

HOUSE OF FABRICS dba JO ANN FABRICS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FCA OF OHIO, INC. DBA JO ANN

FABRICS #1568; and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV.S. 04-2046 EJG PAN

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON 

Case 2:04-cv-02046-LKK -PAN Document 19 Filed 09/09/05 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

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Sanford v. Jo Ann Fabrics #1568, et al.

- 2 - CIV. S 04-2046 LKK PAN

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, James Sanford, and

defendant, FCA of Ohio, Inc. dba Jo Ann Fabrics #1568, the parties hereby request that all parties be

dismissed with prejudice from the above-entitled action.

Dated: September 5, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

/s/ Scottlynn J. Hubbard, IV

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: September 5, 2005 BROWN W INFIELD & CANZONERI, INC.

Signature On File

ARTHUR LETTENMAIER, ESQ.

ADRIAN GUERRA, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant JO ANN FABRICS

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S 04-2046 LKK

PAN, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 8, 2005. /s/Lawrence K. Karlton

Lawrence K. Karlton

Senior Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02046-LKK -PAN Document 19 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

June 5, 1962

No. 66828.

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/33663, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of liquid air engines and parts similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66095, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.