alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. Hollywood Video #005-669, et al.

 CIV. S-04-2045 DFL JFM

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

PHILLIP BONOTTO SBN 109257

RUSHFORD & BONOTTO

2277 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite 495

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: (916) 565-0590

Facsimile: (916) 565-0599

Attorneys for Defendant

JULIE RANEY SBN 176060

MCDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN

555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor

Sacramento, Ca 95814

Telephone: (916) 444-3900

Facsimile: (916) 444-3249

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT

CORPORATION dba HOLLYWOOD VIDEO

#005-669; GEORGE TSAKOPOULOS and

DROSOULA TSAKOPOULOS, Trustees of

the TSAKOPOULOS FAMILY TRUST; and

DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV. S 04-2045 DFL JFM

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON 

Case 2:04-cv-02045-DFL -JFM Document 19 Filed 08/04/05 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. Hollywood Video #005-669, et al.

- 2 - CIV. S-04-2045 DFL JFM

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, JAMES

SANFORD, and defendants, HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION dba

HOLLYWOOD VIDEO #005-669 and GEORGE TSAKOPOULOS and DROSOULA

TSAKOPOULOS, Trustees of the TSAKOPOULOS FAMILY TRUST, the parties hereby

request that all parties be dismissed with prejudice from the above-entitled action.

Dated: _________, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

/s/Scottlynn J. Hubbard, IV 

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: _________, 2005 RUSHFORD & BONOTTO

Signature on file

PHILLIP BONOTTO

Attorneys for Defendant Hollywood

Entertainment Corporation dba 

Hollywood Video #005-669

Dated: _________, 2005 MCDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN

Signature on file

JULIE RANEY

Attorneys for Defendant George Tsakopoulos

and Drosoula Tsakopoulos, Trustees of the

Tsakopoulos Family Trust

ORDER

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

2045 DFL JFM, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: August 3, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

United States District Court Judge

For the Honorable David F. Levi 

Case 2:04-cv-02045-DFL -JFM Document 19 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
The X-Change Corporation
File No.  000-53132
Form 10-K
For the year ended December 31, 2010

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of The X-Change Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2010 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Haviland Wright,
Chief  Executive  Officer and Acting  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:

     (1)  the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: January 14, 2011                        By: /s/ Haviland Wright
      ----------------                            ------------------------------
                                                                 Haviland Wright
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to The  X-Change  Corporation  and will be  retained  by The  X-Change
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
No. 55954.

protests 167491-K and 167874-K (New York).

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved ini *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and1 that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested not found were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and! following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are 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. 53548.

protests 136026-K and 138631-K (Tampa).

#### Miami Importing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64v C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00423

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.G.M.

, a Child

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 01833

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of termination is

AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Father because he is indigent.

SIGNED October 21, 2015.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0140 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0140

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the draft Council decision adapting the provisions concerning the Court of Justice in fields covered by Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community (COM(2006)0346 - C6-0304/2006 - 2006/0808(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0506 - 0507 *

P6_TA(2007)0140

Adaption of Title IV of the EC Treaty — Court of Justice *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the draft Council decision adapting the provisions concerning the Court of Justice in fields covered by Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community (COM(2006)0346 — C6-0304/2006 — 2006/0808(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the draft Council decision annexed to the Commission communication (COM(2006)0346 — C6-0304/2006),

- having regard to Article 67(2), second indent, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament,

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0082/2007);

1. Approves the draft Council decision;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Calls for initiation of the conciliation procedure under the Joint Declaration of 4 March 1975 if the Council intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the draft decision substantially;

5. Calls on the Council to speed up the activation of the "passerelle" clauses in order to remove the restrictions on the powers of the Court of Justice in connection with Title IV of the Treaty, while pointing out that it has already called on the Council to remove those restrictions;

6. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

--------------------------------------------------
Before the Second Division,

January 28, 1944

No. 49175.

#### Protest 98780-K of Spiegel Bros. Corp. (New York).

*252Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was conclusively established that the horns in question are similar to the bicycle horns involved in *Spiegel Bros. Corp.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 194, C. D. 692). The claim at 30 percent under paragraph 371 was therefore sustained.
NO. 13-14-00083-CR

VALENTIN GAONA § IN THE 

§ 

VS. § COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

§ 

STATE OF TEXAS § TRAVIS COUNTY, TX 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PDR

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

 Now comes VALENTIN GAONA Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, 

and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file PDR, pursuant to the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows the following: 

 1. This case is on appeal from the 94TH Judicial District Court of NUECES County, 

Texas. 

 2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. VALENTIN GOANA, and 

numbered 13-CR-2947-C. 

 3. Appellant was convicted of Evading with a Vehicle and Sentencd to32 years TDC 

on January 22, 2014. 

 4. Notice of appeal was given on or about January 30, 2014 

 5. The clerk's record was filed on May 13, 2014; the reporter's record was filed on 

March 20, 2014. 

 6. The appellate brief was filed on or about 

 7. The appellate brief is presently due on or about October 17, 2014. 

 8. State’s Brief was filed December 1, 2014. 

 9. The Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 19, 2015 

 10. A Petition for Discretionary Review was due on March 19, 2015 and Deadline for 

PD-0383-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/3/2015 12:20:27 PM

Accepted 4/3/2015 1:39:41 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
an extension is April 3, 2015. 

 11. Defendant is currently incarcerated at the WILLACY Unit, 1695 S Buffalo Dr. 

Raymondville, TX 78580. 

 11. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested extension: 

TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TIME TO FILE ‘PRO SE’ PDR. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Court grant this 

Motion To Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other and further relief as the 

Court may deem appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

GRAHAM LEGAL SERVICES 

3206 Reid Dr 105 

Corpus Christi, TX 78404 

Tel: (361) 723-1530 

Fax: (361) 723-1531 

By:/s/CORETTA GRAHAM 

Coretta T. Graham 

State Bar No. 50511851 

Appeal Counsel for VALENTIN GOANA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that on April 3 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Nueces County, 901 Leopard rm, 206, 

CC, TX 78401, by hand delivery/email. 

/s/CORETTA GRHAM 

Coretta T. Graham, Appeal Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4387]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-325-000]


Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Proposed Changes In FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 
1, the following revised tariff sheets, with an effective date of April 
1, 2007:

Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 5
Twenty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 6
Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 10

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b6d6e796864454742454e785e5b5b44595f6b4d4e5948054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81c7c4d3c2ceefede8efe4d2f4f1f1eef3f5c1e7e4f3e2afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4387 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 61388.

protest 304139-K (New York).

#### Schneider Bros. & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of Abstract 59812 and that the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
No. 52040.

#### A. Kuehnert & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 645528-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER WACHNIUK, No. CIV-S-04-1623 MCE/PAN P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

GAIL LEWIS, 

Respondent. 

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this court's August 18, 2005,

dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus for

failure to exhaust state remedies. Before petitioner can appeal

this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

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

///

Case 2:04-cv-01623-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 09/29/05 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

The court must either issue a certificate of appealability

indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must

state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed.

R. App. P. 22(b).

Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the

prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775,

780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120

S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).

After careful review of the entire record herein, this court

finds that petitioner has not satisfied the first requirement for

issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case.

Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition is untimely. Accordingly,

a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: September 29, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-01623-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.2



AMENDMENT NO. 15
TO THE
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
NUCLEAR FACILITIES QUALIFIED CPUC DECOMMISSIONING
MASTER TRUST AGREEMENT
FOR
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS




This Amendment No. 15 made this 31st day of August, 2016, by and between San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“Company”) and The Bank of New York Mellon, a New York state bank, successor by operation of law to Mellon Bank, N.A (“Trustee”).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.12 of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations dated as of June 29, 1992, as amended (“Agreement”) between the Company and the Trustee, the parties specifically reserve the right to amend the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee agree as follows:
		
	1.
	The following sentence shall be added to Section 1.05:




“The tax partnership maintained under this Agreement shall be known as the SDG&E Qualified Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Partnership”.


		
	2.
	Each Party hereby represents and warrants to the others that it has full authority to enter into this Amendment No. 15 upon the terms and conditions hereof and that the individual executing this Amendment No. 15 on its behalf has the requisite authority to bind that Party.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, the Trustee, and the California Public Utilities Commission have set their hands and seals in agreement to these amendments as of the latest date set forth below.




SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________






THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________






CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:13-cv-01555-GK Document 13-4 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 5Case 1:13-cv-01555-GK Document 13-4 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 5Case 1:13-cv-01555-GK Document 13-4 Filed 10/31/13 Page 3 of 5Case 1:13-cv-01555-GK Document 13-4 Filed 10/31/13 Page 4 of 5Case 1:13-cv-01555-GK Document 13-4 Filed 10/31/13 Page 5 of 5
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

NORMAN HUBBS,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2256-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

STEVEN MAYBERG,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has

filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 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 July 8, 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. 

Defendant filed timely objections to the findings and

Case 2:04-cv-02256-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 09/15/05 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

recommendations. The copy of the findings and recommendations

served on plaintiff at his address of record was returned to the

court as undeliverable on July 21, 2005. After plaintiff filed a

notice of change of address, plaintiff was re-served with the

findings and recommendations and was granted an extension of time

to file a reply to defendant’s objections. Plaintiff has filed a

reply as well as objections of his own.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 8, 2005

are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s December 22, 2004 motion to dismiss is

denied; and

3. Defendant is directed to file his answer within the

time provided by Rule 12(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

Dated: September 14, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02256-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8672)

Entry No. W-06542.

#### N. Y. Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 10, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, with the exception of the vacuum bottles embraced in said entry, at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering the non-durable so-called (F. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage added by the importer on entry.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

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. *529except the vacuum bottles, and that such values were the appraised values, les? additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called (f. o. b.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage, added by the importer on entry. *n*

Insofar as the appeal relates to vacuum bottles, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.