alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      The undersigned officer of Astralis, Ltd. (the "Company"), certifies that:

(1)   the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the three and twelve
      month periods ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: April 21, 2006                         /s/ Michael Garone
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Michael Garone
                                              Interim Chief Executive Officer,
                                              Interim President,
                                              Chief Financial Officer

      This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF PANOLA COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 3rd 

day of February, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

In the Matter of the Marriage of Everett 

Alton Taylor, Jr., and Dochia Ann 

Taylor and In the Interest of R.N.T., a 

Child

No. 06-14-00061-CV

Trial Court No. 2013-093

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant pay all costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 23rd day of April, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
(Reap. Dec. 8870)

Entry No. 834248.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that — ■

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court'on the record as it appears therein.

*541Accordingly, I have examined- the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.9(a)

 

ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

The Parties hereto previously entered into an Employment Agreement which became effective as of January 1, 2014.  The Parties wish to amend the terms of that agreement.  The Parties hereby agree to amend the terms thereof by extending the termination date of the agreement as set forth in Paragraph 2.1 therein by one year.  Therefore the termination date of December 31, 2014 shall be amended to be December 31, 2015.  All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain effective until the new termination date.

 

In all other regards the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement are hereby ratified and affirmed.

 

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   Joseph Tomkinson
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
s/   Joseph Tomkinson
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
CEO
    	
 
    


 

 

Employee

 

	
/s/   Todd Taylor
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Todd   Taylor
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JORGE A. LEGARRETA,

 Appellant,

v.

CLAUDIA ALVIDREZ and THE OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

TEXAS,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-19-00301-CV

Appeal from the

383rd District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC#2012DCM10214)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellees

recover from Appellant and his sureties, if any, see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ISAIAS GALAN-CORTES, AKA Isaias 

Cortez, AKA Isaias Galan Cortes, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10293 

D.C. No. 

4:21-cr-00856-CKJ-LAB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. 

Isaias Galan-Cortes appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 21-month sentence for reentry of a 

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Galan-Cortes’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-10293 

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We 

have provided Galan-Cortes the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No 

pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
#### BMH Realty Ltd., Doing Business as Heller Realty, Appellant, v 399 East 72nd Street Owners, Inc., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 141]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered January 11, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to plaintiff’s contention that the correspondence between the parties constituted a binding agreement. Indeed, the documents themselves make clear that the parties did not intend to be bound until a formal agreement was executed *(see, Brause v Goldman,*10 AD2d 328, 332-333, *affd*9 NY2d 620). Nor was defendant required to make a good faith effort to prepare and deliver a formal written agreement *(see, Bernstein v Felske,*143 AD2d 863, 865). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 19 46

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, * * App el le e, * * App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e * Dis tri ctof S ou th Dako ta

. Edu ard o C on tre ras -Fl or es , * al so kn own as C arl os Flo res , * [UNPUBLISHED] * App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Subm it te d: Octo be r 5, 2 01 1 Fi le d: Octo be r 19 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu itJu dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM. Edu ard o Co nt rera s- Fl or es pl ead ed gu il ty t o il le ga l reen tr y aft er de po rta ti on
. See 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) an d (b ). The di st ric t c o u r t se nt en ced hi m to 77 m on th s in 1 pr is on an d 2 y ears of supe r v i s e d r el eas e. His co un se l ha s m ov ed to withd raw an d fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S

. 7 3 8 (1 96 7) , as se rti ng th at th e se nt en ce is un reas on ab le

. Co nt rera s- Fl ores ha s fi le d a supp lem en ta l br ie f ch al le ng in g hi s s en te nc e an d a ss ert in g t ha t h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e.

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Schr ei er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo ur t 1 fo r th e Dis tri ctof S ou th Dako ta

.Co nt rary to co un se l’s an d Co nt rera s- Fl or es ’s arg um en ts , we co nc lu de th at th e

di st ric t co ur t co m

m it te d no pr oc edur al erro r in se nt en ci ng Co nt rera s- Fl or es , an d th at th e co ur t im

po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le se nt en ce. See Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ); Uni te d St at es v. Garci a, 51 2 F.3 d 10 04 , 10 06 (8 th Ci r
. 20 08 ). W e de cl in e to rev ie w Co nt rera s- Fl or es ’s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s in t h i s d ire ct ap pe al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Loo ki ng Cl ou d, 4 19 F.3d78 1, 7 88 -8 9 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ).

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d
no no nf riv ol ou s is su es
. Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, an d we affi rm
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
No. 48559.

#### Protest 803316-G of Cosimo Daniel (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that the merchandise was not capable of being marked, and that the cases, the immediate containers, were not marked to indicate the country of origin of the cippolini. The importer was required to mark the cases with the word “Morocco” before they were released from customs custody. As neither the merchandise nor the immediate coverings were legally marked it was held that the collector was justified in assessing additional duty. The protest was therefore overruled.
Before the Third Division,

July 27, 1942

No. 47420.

#### Protest 989463-G of Schenley Import Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J

On the effective date of the Cuban Trade Agreement (September 3,1934) the only tax required by the federal laws on such merchandise as that involved was $2 per proof gallon under the Liquor Taxing Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 313), which tax remained in effect until passage of the Revenue Act of 1938, *supra.*In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise was imported and entered for warehouse July 1, 1938 and entirely withdrawn on or before July 11, 1938, and following *Rathjen*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 659) it was held that the tax assessable is $2 per proof gallon, as claimed. The protest was therefore sustained to that extent.
### November 24, 2014 Gerald Wozniak Environmental Engineer Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program U

. S . EPA/ St r atospheric Protection Division Tel. (202) 343-9624 Email Wozniak.gerald@epa

. gov Dear Mr. Wozniak

, Thank you for the feedback regarding DuPont Opteon ® XP40 SNAP (R-449A) submission

. This letter
is to answer the points that were raised in the November
13
, 2014 Opteon ® XP40 SNAP incompleteness letter. Answers to questions
1) and 2) DuPont confirms that we will use Opteon ® XP40 (R

- 449A) refrigerant

in the applications listed in Table

1 below. As requested

in question

1, DuPont has marked the applications, along with the possible sub-categories

of applications

as new (N) or retrofit

( R). Add

i tionally, as requested

in question
2, DuPont has provided an estimate of the typical charge and maximum charge size for applications noted

. [ confidential business information

] 

### Wilmington

, DE 19805 D i scl a i m er
: T h e i nf o rm a t i on se t f ort h h e re in i s furni

s h e d free of c h a r ge a n d b ase d on t e ch ni c a l d a t a t h a t D u Pont b e li ev es to b e r e li ab l e. It i s in te nd e d f or u se by per s on s h av i n g t e c hnic a l s k ill , a t th e ir own risk

. S i n ce cond

i t i on s o f u se are o ut s i d e our co n tro l , D u P o n t mak e no warr a nti es, ex pr esse d o r i mp li e d a nd a ss u m e no li a b ili ty i n conn
e c t io n with
a n y u se of t h i s informat

i o n . Not hin g h er e in i s to b e take n a s a li c en s e to o p erate und e r , o r a reco mm e n dat
i on to in f rin g e a n y p a t e n t s or p a te n t app li c a ti o n s
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

OCTOBER 8, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b).

1. Case No. SD33676

Re: STATE OF MISSOURI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs. DONOVAN JAMES OVERBY,

Defendant-Appellant.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T GH AY OO R KH AN , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72392 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 478- 717 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G hay oorK han, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of P a ki s t an, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED JU L 09 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72392 2 ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n , N

aj m ab ad iv. H

older , 597 F . 3d 983, 986 ( 9th C i r . 2010) , and w e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng K han’ s m ot i on t o reopen as u n tim e lyw h e r e th e m o tio n w a s f ile do v e rf

iv e y e ar s a f

te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l o r d e r , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , an dK h an f a ile dto p r e s e n t s u f

f ic ie n t m a te r ia l, p r e v io u s ly una va i l abl e e vi de nc e of c hange d c i r c um s t anc e s i n P a ki s t an t o qua l i f yf orthe r e g u la to rye x c e p tio n to th e tim e lim it f o rf ilin g m o tio n s to r e o p e n , se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; T

ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 53 8 F . 3d 98 8, 99 6-97 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( B IA di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he r e e vi de nc e of c hange d c ountryc ondi t i ons w a s not m at eri al t o p et i t i o n er’ s cl ai m , an dp et i t i o n er fai l edt o est ab l i sh a p ri m a faci e case f o ra s y lu m ) ; M

a ltyv . A s h c r o

ft , 38 1 F . 3d 94 2, 94 5 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( “ T he cr i t i ca l qu es t i on i s . . . w hether c i rc um st ance s have c hang ed suff i ci ent l y thata pet i t i on er w ho previ ou sl y di d n othave a l egi t i m at e c l ai m for a sy l um no w has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . ”) . W e rej ectK h an ’ s co n t en t i o n th atth e B IA fai l edt o co n si d er al l fact o rs, because K han h as no tov er com e the pres um pt i on thatthe B IA consi dere d the ent i re r e c o r d . See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 4 3 9 F .3 d5 9 2 , 6 0 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 SecureLogic Corp. (the "Registrant") on
Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary
Koren, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


         (1)      The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit
                  32.1, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Registrant




Dated: April  13, 2006                    /s/  Gary Koren
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Gary Koren, Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Craig Jackson, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 463]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered September 16, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of petit larceny and theft of services, and sentencing him to con*255secutive prison terms of 1 year and fining him $1,000 on each conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court improperly announced a *Sandoval*ruling without any type of hearing or oral argument was not preserved for appellate review. Were we to reach the claim, we would find it to be without merit, because the record does not indicate that defendant made any *Sandoval*application in the first place, and defendant could not have been prejudiced by a gratuitous *sua sponte*ruling, partially in his favor.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0382 IN THE MATTER OF: R.Y. Respondent and Appellant
. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 2 9, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 21 2023

02/21/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0382
No. 48578.

#### Protests 78694-K, etc., of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of hats composed of manila hemp, similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72. C. A. D. 218). Upon the established facts and the *223authority cited the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained as to those items.
(Reap. Dec. 8721)

#### Border Brokerage Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 05-02492.

(Decided January 4, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle, Sr.,*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*trial attorney) , for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

On trial of this case in Seattle, defendant made the following motion:

> Ma. Weil. The Government moves to dismiss upon the ground that the merchandise has never been appraised by the Appraiser; the notice was given and the importer filed an appeal to reappraisement but in view of the fact that the merchandise had not been appraised, the Government moves to dismiss.

> Mb. Tuttle. I have no objection. (R. 2.)

Upon motion of defendant, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1



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 GEOPHARMA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Mihir K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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/ Mihir K. TanejaMihir K. TanejaChief Executive OfficerJuly 2, 2004
Order filed November 22, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00774-CV

____________

BLUE SKY SATELLITE SALES & THEATER SERVICES, LLC, Appellant

V.

K18th, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 146th District Court

Bell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 313 015-B

ORDER

The notice of appeal in this case was filed September 21, 2022. The clerk 

responsible for preparing the record notified this court that appellant has not made 

payment for the record. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has 

been filed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. On October 26, 2022, this court notified 

appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless appellant filed a response 

with proof of payment for the record. No response was filed. Therefore, the court 

issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to demonstrate to this court within ten (10) days of the 

date of this order arrangements have been made to pay for the clerk’s record. See 

Tex.R.App.P. 35.3(c). If appellant fails to do so, the appeal is subject to dismissal 

without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
No. 57352.

Suit 4730.

#### United States *v.*Pacific Coast Feather Company (Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.).

C. A. D. 510.
Order entered February 22, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 01554

- CV

WALTER S. MITCHELL I II, Appellant

V.

DALLAS COUNTY ET AL, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 02171



### O RDER

We GRANT appellant’s February 15, 2013 third request for an extension of time to file a

brief TO THE EXTENT that appellant shall file his brief on or before March 14, 2013 . We

caution appellant that no further extens ion of time will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
No. 47948.

#### Protests 993062-G (A), etc., of Amerlux Steel Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the steel bale ties in question are similar to those involved in *Wilbur-Ellis Co.*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 403, C. A. D. 47). They were therefore held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1604 as claimed.