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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON ALLEN MAGGARD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2196 GEB KJM P

vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner inmate proceeding pro se,

has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On June 22, 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. 

Case 2:04-cv-02196-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 08/16/05 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

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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 22,

2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. Respondent’s February 4, 2005 motion to dismiss is

granted and petitioner is permitted to file an amended petition

containing only exhausted claims within thirty days.

Dated: August 15, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02196-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13181

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

BLONDELL GARNER CLARK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

IBM, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-02834-TWT

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-13181 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13181

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In November of 2019, the district court dismissed Blondell 

Garner Clark’s ERISA lawsuit against IBM for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Ms. Clark, proceeding pro se, now appeals 

the district court’s denial of her post-judgment motion for a new

trial, which she filed in August of 2021. She argues that the district 

court ignored “evidence” that she presented with her complaint 

and therefore should be granted a new trial. 

A court is permitted to grant a new trial following a jury or 

nonjury trial based on insufficiency of evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(a); Gill as Next Friend of K.C.R. v. Judd, 941 F.3d 504, 521 

(11th Cir. 2019). A motion to grant a new trial must be filed “no 

later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(b). Here there was no trial, so Rule 59(a) could not provide Ms. 

Clark with any relief. 

To the extent that Ms. Clark sought to alter or amend the 

district court’s judgment under Rule 59(e), that motion was untimely. A motion to alter and amend must likewise be filed within 

28 days of the judgment, and Ms. Clark filed her motion almost 

two years after the district court dismissed her complaint.

A court is permitted to relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding if there is newly 

discovered evidence that could not have been discovered in time 

USCA11 Case: 21-13181 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 2 of 3
21-13181 Opinion of the Court 3

to move for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b)(2); Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Nw. Nat. Ins. Co., 198 

F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999). A motion of relief from a judgment, however, must be filed “no more than a year after the entry 

of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(c)(1). As noted, Ms. Clark’s motion was filed more than 

a year after the dismissal of her complaint, so it was untimely even 

if it was filed under Rule 60(b).

The district court properly denied Ms. Clark’s post-judgment motion. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED 

USCA11 Case: 21-13181 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 3 of 3
# m

.

1r - Operations, M-30 U.S. Department • Transportation (DOT) 1200 New Jerse y

Avenue, SE Room W12-140, West Buildin g Ground Floor Washin g ton, D.C. 20590-0001

RE: Amendment to Strai g htEd g e Aero, LLC Exemption No. 12205 Docket No. FAA-2015-187 3

Strai g htEd g e Aero, LLC re q uested aerial photo g raph y and video g raph yservices to laomeowners, realtors, builders, contractors, and/or inspectors for use in., but not limited to, real estate marketin g and safer inspections of home and buildin g exteriors.Strai g htEd g e Aero, LLC respectfull y re q uests to expand our approved operations for thef•llowin g cate g ories:

1. Aerial filmin g

. 2. Aerial ima g er y

. 3. Aerial inspections. 4. Aerial photo g raph y S. Aerial surve y in g 6. Aerial video gr aph y
Examples include but are not limited to: 1. A g riculture 2. Air q ualit ymonitorin g 3. Athletic performances 4. Brid g es S. Buildin g and construction zone 6. Construction sites 7. Crop surve y in g 8. Education 9. Electric g rids 10. Electric utilit y industr y , oil and pipelines 11. Emer 9 enc y mana g ement assistance


# pa. Search and rescue, hazmat/ chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear management, and emergency and disaster response 12. Establish a UAS Flight Instruction Program 13. Flare stacks 14. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 15. Geologic hazard assessment 16. Image mapping 17. Mapping and survey applications 18. Market research 19. Media and advertising 20. Mines 21. Petroleum and mining industry 22. Power lines 23. Pipeline patrol 24. Precision aerial surveys 25. Professional marketing 26. Railroad infrastructure and operations 27. Remote sensing 28. Research and development 29. Security services 30. Student instruction 31. Telecommunication/cell tower sites 32. Wildlife and natural resource 33. Disasters and catastrophe events

As indicated above, there is good cause for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemptions would not set precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner.
There has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.
Thank you for your time and consideration with our request. Feel free to contact us with any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Flom Managing Partner, StraightEdge Aero, LLC

2
No. 53566.

protests 134468-K, etc. (Tampa).

#### Simon Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

*169Opinion by

Ford, 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. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.-
The DJI Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual exceeds the 10.5 Megbyte limit, but is available here:

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_2_vision_plus/en/Phantom_2_Vision_Plus_User_Manual_v1.8_en.pdf
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

ANTHONY L. TAYLOR,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2063 GEB KJM P

vs.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On April 7, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and

which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-02063-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

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 April 7,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed.

Dated: June 9, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02063-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21.1



Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Kinder Morgan (Delaware), Inc.  DE
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.  DE
KMGP Services Company, Inc.  DE
Kinder Morgan Management, LLC  DE
Kinder Morgan Services LLC  DE
KN Cogeneration, Inc.  CO
Thermo Project Management, Inc.  CO
Valley Operating, Inc.  CO
KN Thermo, L.L.C.  CO
Cogeneration Holdings LLC  DE
Cogeneration LLC  DE
Kinder Morgan Ft. Lupton Operator LLC  DE
Thermo Greeley, LLC  CO
KN Telecommunications, Inc.  CO
KN Gas Supply Services, Inc.  CO
Kinder Morgan Power Company  CO
KN TransColorado, Inc.  CO
KN Wattenberg Transmission Limited Liability Company  CO
Kinder Morgan Retail Energy Services Company  CO
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company  CO
Kinder Morgan Foundation (nonprofit)  CO
KN Gas Gathering, Inc.  CO
MidCon Corp.  DE
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America  DE
NGPL Canyon Compression Co.  DE
Canyon Creek Compression Company  IL
KN Energy International, Inc.  DE
KM International Services, Inc.  DE
Kinder Morgan Michigan, LLC  DE
KM Turbine Facility #6 LLC  DE
Kinder Morgan Michigan Operator LLC  DE
Triton Power Company LLC  DE
Triton Power Michigan LLC  DE
KMC Thermo, L.L.C.  CO
Administracion y Operacion de Infraestructura, S.A. de C.V.  Mexico
GNN Servicios, S. de R.L. de C.V.  Mexico
Gas Natural del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V.  Mexico
KN Thermo Acquisition, Inc.  CO
Kinder Morgan TransColorado LLC  DE
Kinder Morgan TransColorado, Inc.  UT

KM Insurance, Ltd.  Bermuda

Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC  DE

1197774 Alberta ULC Alberta, Canada

1197779 Alberta ULC Alberta, Canada

0731297 B.C. Ltd.  British Columbia, Canada

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.  Alberta, Canada

Kinder Morgan Finance Company, ULC Alberta, Canada

Terasen Gas (Squamish) Inc.  British Columbia, Canada

Terasen Gas (Vancouver Island) Inc.  British Columbia, Canada

Terasen Gas (Whistler) Inc.  British Columbia, Canada

Terasen Gas Inc.  British Columbia, Canada

Terasen Inc.  British Columbia, Canada

Terasen Pipelines (Corridor) Inc. - Alberta, Canada

Terasen Pipelines (Heartland) Inc.- Alberta, Canada

Terasen Pipelines (Jet Fuel) Inc.  British Columbia, Canada

Terasen Pipelines (Puget Sound) Corporation - Delaware

Terasen Pipelines (Trans Mountain) Inc. - Canada
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4433]



[[Page 11032]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1686-DR]


Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1686-DR), dated March 3, 2007, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the Public 
Assistance program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President 
in his declaration of March 3, 2007:

Baker, Crawford, McDuffie, Mitchell, and Taylor Counties for 
Individual Assistance.
Sumter County for Public Assistance (already designated for 
Individual Assistance).
Baker, Clay, Crawford, McDuffie, Mitchell, Muscogee, Stewart, and 
Taylor Counties for Public Assistance.

    All counties within the State of Georgia are eligible to apply 
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.
[FR Doc. E7-4433 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RONALD GRADY, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 122, 39 CMR 122

No. 21,543

February 7, 1969

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Lieutenant Colonel Martin S. DrucJcer,*and *Major David J. Passamaneck*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain Larry S. Seuferer*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

*123Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Appellant has been convicted by general court-martial of the theft and sale of a grenade launcher, property of the US Government, in violation of Articles 121 and 180, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§921 and 980,. respectively. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for one year, and reduction to Private E-l. The findings and sentence have been approved by the convening authority and affirmed by the board of' review without change. We granted the appellant’s petition for review to consider two issues:

> 1. Whether the staff judge advocate’s failure to advise the convening authority of the provisions of 37 USC § 804 prejudiced the appellant.

> 2. Whether the law officer erred to the prejudice of the appellant by failing to advise the court-martial of the provisions of 37 USC § 804.

As shown above, the sentence given this accused does not include forfeitures of pay. Nonetheless, a question arises whether he will accrue pay in light of section 804, Title 37, United States Code, which provides:

> “Pay and allowances do not accrue to an enlisted member of the Army or the Air Force who is in confinement under sentence of dishonorable discharge, while the execution of the sentence to discharge is suspended. (Pub L 87-649, Sept 7,1962, 76 Stat 486.)”

The crucial question is whether the word “suspended,” in section 804 of Title 37, United States Code, means (1) that the execution of the discharge sentence is merely withheld until the end of appellate review or (2) that the execution of the discharge sentence has been provisionally delayed pending good conduct of the accused and that the discharge may later be remitted. If the first meaning is accurate, pay and allowances do not accrue to the appellant in this ease after the date the convening authority acted on his sentence. If the latter meaning is the correct one, the appellant in this case continues to accrue pay and allowances, because the convening authority approved the sentence to dishonorable discharge.

The Court considered the same issue in United States v Bolden, 18 USCMA 119, 39 CMR 119. For one of the reasons expressed in that opinion, we think the issue in this case is also moot. In *Bolden,*we said that “We are unaware of any authoritative determination that paragraph 70506 of Part 7, Chapter 5, Military Pay and Allowances Entitlements Manual (January 1, 1967), below, is inconsistent with or limited by 37 USC § 804 under the circumstances of this case.” *Id.,*at page 122. That observation applies equally to the instant case.

The decision of the board of review' is affirmed.
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

SCHEER & IMFELD, LLP

SPENCER P. SCHEER # 107750

MICHAEL D. IMFELD # 76851

100 Smith Ranch Rd., Suite 306

San Rafael, CA 94903

Telephone: (415) 491-8900

Facsimile: (415) 491-8910

Attorneys for Plaintiff FRED GRANGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK GRANGE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MODERN GROUP, LTD., et al., 

Defendants.

__________________________________/

Case No. 04-CV-1815 WBS/JM

ORDER EXONERATING BOND POSTED

IN CONNECTION WITH TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

HEARING DATE: Hearing Date

TIME:

JUDGE: Hon. William B. Schubb

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties in this case, through

their attorneys, Michael D. Imfeld and Scheer & Imfeld, LLP, for Plaintiff and Eric B. Simon and

Dillingham & Murphy, LLP, for Defendants, that the $30,000 bond posted in connection with the

preliminary injunction issued in this case is discharged and exonerated.

Dated: December 22, 2005

ORDER EXONERATING BOND ISSUED RE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case 2:04-cv-01815-WBS -JFM Document 86 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 41778.

#### Protests 602215-G, etc., of C. S. Emery & Co. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Emery*v. *United States*(T. D. 46702) and *Myers*v. *United States*(T. D. 49530) the protests were sustained, and it was held that the mean average of the thickness of the edges of the clapboards in the condition as imported should have been taken in imposing the tax under section 601 (c) (6), Revenue Act of 1932.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MICHAEL C. WILLIAMS, Private U. S. Army, Appellant

No. 28,550

August 23, 1974

*Lieutenant Colonel Edward S. Adamkewicz, Jr., Captain Gordon R. Deni-son,*and *Captain Ward Mundy*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Captain John R. Erck,*and *Captain R. Craig Lawrence were*on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

Among other offenses, the accused stands convicted of a specification alleging an unauthorized absence from October 3, 1972, to August 17, 1973, to which he pleaded guilty. During sentencing proceedings, he testified under oath that for some time previous to October 3, he was on bail for a civilian offense and had "been going back and forth” to attend proceedings in the state court. On October 3, his commanding officer authorized him to attend a court session. At that session, he was sentenced for the civilian offense and taken "from the courtroom to the County Jail” and then to the state prison, where he remained until August 17, when paroled and released to military police. As the accused was allowed leave by his commanding officer, his absence was. not unauthorized. United States v Northrup, 12 USCMA 487, 31 CMR 73 (1961). The Government concedes that the accused’s testimony indicates that his plea of guilty to this offense was improvident.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed as to the findings of guilty of specification *Í,*Charge III, and the sentence. The stated specification is dismissed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the Court of Military Review for reassessment of the sentence on the remaining findings of guilty.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of September, 2011.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
-------------------------------------
Jacqueline Winwood
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

O.Z. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2234 FCD KJM P

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02234-FCD-KJM Document 32 Filed 08/03/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 26, 2006 motion for

the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: August 3, 2006.

/mp

mart2234.31

Case 2:04-cv-02234-FCD-KJM Document 32 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2
(V. D. 23)

#### Felix M. Mendelson Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States

Entry No. 616, etc.

*492(Decided March 9, 1956)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

WilsoN, Judge:

The cases listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, involve valuation proceedings which arose by reason of judgments entered by this court in *Felix M. Mendelson and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni et al.*v. *United States,*31 Cust. Ct. 311, Abstract 57653; *Thalson Co. and Joseph A. Paredes & Co. et al.*v. *United States,*33 Cust. Ct. 305, Abstract 58234; *Felix M. Mendelson and Hoyt, Shepston*& *Sciaroni et al.*v. *United States,*34 Cust. Ct. 313, Abstract 58859; and *Frazar & Hansen, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States,*35 Cust. Ct. 205, Abstract 59190. By those judgments, under the terms of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)), the matters were remanded to a single judge to “determine the proper dutiable value of the merchandise.” The proceedings have been abandoned by counsel for the plaintiffs. They are, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.