alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD W. SMEDLEY, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 174, 35 CMR 146

No. 17,786

December 11, 1964

*Captain Mervyn Hamburg*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian*and *Colonel Joseph L. Chalk.*

*Captain John C. Cortesio, Jr.,*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Colonel Edwin G. Schuck, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper, Captain John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *First Lieutenant Richard J. Andriolo.*

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

Tried by general court-martial, the accused was found guilty of willful disobedience of the lawful orders of his superior Warrant Officer, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91, 10 USC § 891, and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for six months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority approved the sentence. The board of review, affirming, reduced accused’s punishment to forfeiture of $70.00 per month for six months, confinement at hard labor for a like period, and reduction. We granted Sergeant Smedley’s petition for *175
      *review on*the issue whether the law officer erred to his prejudice in his instructions to the court-martial regarding the defense of lack of mental responsibility.

At the trial, expert testimony was adduced by the defense which indicated that the accused committed the offenses charged during an epileptic seizure, which rendered him incapable of meeting the standards laid down in military law for mental responsibility. While other evidence controverted this conclusion, it *is*clearly sufficient to raise an issue for decision by the fact finders concerning accused’s amenability to criminal penalties for his alleged misconduct. Cf. United States v Alphin, 15 USCMA 14, 34 CMR 460; Fitts v United States, 284 F2d 108 (CA 10th Cir) (1960); United States v Currens, 290 F2d 751 (CA 3d Cir) (1961).

The law officer’s instructions regarding mental responsibility included, as a governing test, reference to whether the accused would have committed the acts charged, had the circumstances been such that he could expect immediate detection and apprehension. Such was erroneous and, in light of the issue presented for the decision of the fact finders, prejudicially so. United States v Jensen, 14 USCMA 353, 34 CMR 133; United States v Jordan, 14 USCMA 393, 34 CMR 173; United States v Moore, 14 USCMA 418, 34 CMR 198; United States v Alphin, supra.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-day concur.
No. 59037.

protest 247116-K (New York).

#### H. Reifenberg *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
Before the Second Division,

November 16, 1960

No. 64888.

#### Jersey Steel & Chemical Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/34505 (Boston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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 PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Beverly
A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, 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 result of operations of the
Corporation.
 
 
 /s/
      Beverly A. CummingsChief
      Financial OfficerMarch 24,
    2009
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4934 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create an above the line 

deduction for certain homeowners insurance premiums. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create 

an above the line deduction for certain homeowners insurance premiums. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeowners Premium 

5 Tax Reduction Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PRE7 MIUMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VII of subchapter B of chap9 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4934 IS

1 by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by insert2 ing after section 223 the following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 224. HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PREMIUMS. 

4 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the case of an 

5 individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction an 

6 amount equal to so much of the qualified insurance pre7 miums paid or incurred during the taxable year as does 

8 not exceed $10,000. 

9 ‘‘(b) QUALIFIED INSURANCE PREMIUMS.—For pur10 poses of this section, with respect to an individual, the 

11 term ‘qualified insurance premiums’ means annual policy 

12 premiums paid or incurred for homeowners insurance with 

13 respect to the principal residence of the individual. 

14 ‘‘(c) PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.—For purposes of this 

15 section, the term ‘principal residence’ has the same mean16 ing as when used in section 121.’’. 

17 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN DETERMINING AD18 JUSTED GROSS INCOME.—Section 62(a) of the Internal 

19 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after para20 graph (21) the following new paragraph: 

21 ‘‘(22) HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PREMIUMS.— 

22 The deduction allowed by section 224.’’. 

23 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

24 for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal 

25 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the item 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4934 IS

1 relating to section 224 and by inserting after the item re2 lating to section 223 the following new items: 

‘‘Sec. 224. Homeowners insurance premiums. 

‘‘Sec. 225. Cross reference.’’. 

3 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 54081.

#### Maywood Chemical Works *v.*United States,

protests 150535-K and 150536-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 9508)

#### Ad. M. Schmid & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 725149, etc.

(Decided September 22, 1959)

*WilUam Whynman*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doul),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted these three appeals for reappraisement on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> That the entered value for each of the articles enumerated on the invoices and involved in the above numbered appeals for reappraisement is the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale for exportation to the United States, to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

> That the imported merchandise involved herein was exported after September 27, 1958 and subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

On the agreed facts, I hold that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), and that such statutory value for each of the articles is the entered value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 annual report of Clamshell Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the
period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Ivan Bial, Principal Financial Officer and Director 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Ivan Bial



Ivan Bial,

 Principal Financial Officer and Director

August 9, 2004
446 A.2d 682

#### Commonwealth v. Ritchie, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 1980.

Justin K. McCarthy, for appellant; Domenic Sbrocchi, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and CAVANAUGH and WATKINS, JJ.

The order of the lower court 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON TAYLOR CLARK, 

Petitioner, No. CIV 04-2656 LKK CMK P 

vs.

TOM CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended application for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file an answer.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Respondent is directed to file an answer within forty-five days from the date of

this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall include with the

answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;

Case 2:04-cv-02656-LKK -CMK Document 8 Filed 10/30/06 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

3. Petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed;

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus on Michael Patrick Farrel, Senior Assistant

Attorney General.

DATED: October 27, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02656-LKK -CMK Document 8 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4885 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require that additional factors 

be included in the design of counseling pathways under the Transition 

Assistance Program of the Department of Defense. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2024 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require that 

additional factors be included in the design of counseling 

pathways under the Transition Assistance Program of 

the Department of Defense. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transition Improve5 ment by Estimating Risk Act’’ or the ‘‘TIER Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4885 IS

1 SEC. 2. FACTORS FOR COUNSELING PATHWAYS UNDER 

2 TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

3 Section 1142(c)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (M) as sub6 paragraph (R); and 

7 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (L) the fol8 lowing new subparagraphs: 

9 ‘‘(M) Child care requirements of the member 

10 (including whether a dependent of the member is en11 rolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program). 

12 ‘‘(N) The employment status of other adults in 

13 the household of the member. 

14 ‘‘(O) The location of the duty station of the 

15 member (including whether the member was sepa16 rated from family while on duty). 

17 ‘‘(P) The effects of operating tempo and per18 sonnel tempo on the member and the household of 

19 the member. 

20 ‘‘(Q) Whether the member is an Indian or 

21 urban Indian, as those terms are defined in section 

22 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 

23 U.S.C. 1603).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Samuel Oberman Co., Inc., Using the Assumed Name of the Oberman Group, Respondent-Appellant, and UBS Incorporated, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 958]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about July 18, 1994, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Tolub, J., without costs and disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of Transax International Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify for the purpose
of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code, that:

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

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


Dated: March 31, 2006                By: /s/ Adam Wasserman
                                         -------------------------------
                                         Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer
No. 44047.

#### Protest 970556-G of Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the authority of Abstract 41942 the protest was overruled as to the bead trinkets in question.
No. 54711.

#### Eitinger Bead Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 156968-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of gold- and silver-colored beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 54251, the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 3.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

 

**TO THE**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

 

**OF**

 

**“W.O. OPERATING COMPANY, LTD.”**

 

***FIRST:                 ***The name of theentity is “W.O. OPERATING COMPANY, LTD.”

 

***SECOND:*****            **The originalCertificate of Limited Partnership was filed on November 15, 1996.   Thefiling number issued to the limited partnership by the secretary of state is 9373210.

 

***THIRD:*****                **The registeredagent and registered office of the entity as currently shown on the records ofthe secretary of state are:

 

Capitol Corporate Services, Inc.

800 Brazos, Suite 400

Austin, Texas  78701

 

***FOURTH:***             Article I is deleted in its entirety and replacedwith the following:

 

“I

 

Thename of the limited partnership is W.O. Operating Company, Ltd.”

 

***FIFTH:*****                **ThisCertificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership is authorizedby the General Partner pursuant to the Texas Revised Limited Partnership Actand by the governing documents of the limited partnership.

 

***SIXTH:*****                 **ThisCertificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership shall becomeeffective upon its filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Texas.

 

***Remainder of page left intentionally blank.***

 

----

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the undersigned executedthis Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership as ofthe 13TH day of March, 2008.

 

 
|   | **GENERAL  PARTNER:** |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   |                  |
|   | **WO  ENERGY, INC.**  |
|   | a  Texas corporation  |
|   |                  |
|   |                  |
|   | By:                   | /s/  Morris B. Smith |
|   |                  | Name: | Morris  B. Smith |
|   |                  | Title:    | Vice  President and CFO |
|        |                       |  |  |  |  |

 

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 23, 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00241

- CR

Christopher Alexander Garza , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUST ICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having rev iewe d

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in

the judgment

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Because

app ellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Sutherland, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 203]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered March 21, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Furthermore, it was not error for the court to refuse to charge the jury on the defense of justification, since no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense *(see, People v Butts,*72 NY2d 746; *People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299; *People v Bistonath,*216 AD2d 478).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Joy, J. P., Hart, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1 

JOHN P. COLEMAN, SBN 60844

MICHAEL F. KEDDY, SBN 66395 

BOLLING, WALTER & GAWTHROP

A Professional Corporation

8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 400

Sacramento, California 95826

Telephone No. (916) 369-0777

Telecopier No. (916) 369-2698

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOSEPH L. DEXTER AND SHIRLEY A. DEXTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH L. DEXTER, an individual,

SHIRLEY A. DEXTER, an individual, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORWARD AIR, INC., a Tennessee

corporation; STARWOOD HOTELS &

RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., a Maryland

corporation; THE HERTZ CORPORATION,

a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES; GALLAGHER

BASSETT SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL

UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiffs-In-Intervention,

v.

FORWARD AIR, INC., a Tennessee

Corporation; STARWOOD HOTELS &

RESORTS WORLD WIDE, INC., a Maryland

Corporation, THE HERTZ CORPORATION,

a Delaware Corporation,

Defendants-In-Intervention.

____________________________________/

Case No. 2:04-cv-2643 MCE KJM

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE AND

ORDER THEREON

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

designated counsel of record that the above-captioned action, including all claims and counter-claims

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 68 Filed 05/19/06 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

27

28

BOLLING, WALTER

& GAWTHROP

A Professional

Corporation

 2 

and complaint in intervention, be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to F.R.C.P

41(a)(1) and agreement of the parties. 

Date: May 11, 2006 BOLLING, WALTER & GAWTHROP

By: /s/ John P. Coleman 

John P. Coleman - SBN 60844

Attorney for Plaintiffs

JOSEPH DEXTER and SHIRLEY DEXTER

Date: May 11, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF STACEY L. TOKUNAGA

By: /s/ James D. Gabriel 

James D. Gabriel 

Attorney for Plaintiffs-In-Intervention

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES; GALLAGHER

BASSETT SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL

UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Date: May 11, 2006 HARDY, ERICH, BROWN & WILSON

By: /s/ Richard L. Alley 

Richard L. Alley

Attorney for Defendant

FORWARD AIR

Date: May 11, 2006 DONAHUE BATES BLAKEMORE AND MACKEY

By: /s/ David E. Erickson 

David E. Erickson

Attorney for Defendant

THE HERTZ CORPORATION

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 68 Filed 05/19/06 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

27

28

BOLLING, WALTER

& GAWTHROP

A Professional

Corporation

 3 

Date: May 11, 2006 VITALE & LOWE

By: /s/ Lisa G. Mercurio 

Lisa G. Mercurio

Attorney for Defendants

STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS

WORLDWIDE, INC. and DOW HOTEL

iT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: May 17, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

C:\iFolder\mengland\Home\TO DOCKET CIVIL\04cv2643.o.0517.wpd.

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 68 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 66854.

#### Sniafibres Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/17370 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “Lilion Yarn 15/1/0 semi-dull on bobbins with transfer tails,” in fact consists of so-called 15-denier monofilament nylon, *480having a slight turn twist, composed of a single filament, weighing less than 150 deniers per length of 450 meters, and valued at more than $1.11% per pound, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.