alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54885.

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 148083-K (Seattle).

Ford, Judge:

The case listed above presents for our determination the question of the proper classification of certain imported merchandise which was classified as “Packaging machines ‘other,’ ” “Food cutting machine,” and “Parts for above,” and duty was levied thereon at the' rate of 27)4 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Plaintiff’s protest is couched in the following language:

> Articles consisting of can-filling machines and an elevator fish cutter and parts, assessed at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372, relating to machines and parts n. s. p. f., should have been assessed at 15 percent under said paragraph as modified by T. D. 51802, on “other machines” and parts.

At the trial of this case and without objection on the part of defendant, there was admitted in evidence as being descriptive of the can-filling machine, both in its form and in its method of operation, a document which is entitled “Pamphlet No. 11.” This document was marked plaintiff’s exhibit 1.

Plaintiff also offered and there was admitted in evidence as illustrative exhibit 2, a photograph, which it was agreed was descriptive of the merchandise invoiced as an elevator fish cutter.

The examiner of merchandise then testified as to the operation of the elevator fish cutter, and counsel for the respective parties agreed that the examiner’s description of the operation of the elevator fish cutter was correct.

As to the merchandise which was classified as “Parts for above,” neither party offered any evidence.

Paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, specifically excepts from its operation “wrapping and packaging machines; food grinding or cutting machines.” It is therefore clear that if the merchandise in question consists of “Packaging machines” and a “Food cutting machine,” as classified by the collector, they are, by the language of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, *supra,*exempt from the provisions thereof, and the collector’s classification must be upheld.

We have carefully examined the meager record upon which this case was submitted, and have given due consideration to the involved statutes in the light of the arguments presented in the briefs filed by the respective parties, and find that the evidence herein is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of *322correctness in favor of the collector’s classification or to establish any of the claims made by the plaintiff. All claims of the plaintiff are therefore overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and
18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I, Gordon R. Arnold, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:



i.  The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and;



ii. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sierra Monitor Corporation and will be retained by Sierra Monitor Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:

August 13, 2008

By:    /s/ Gordon R. Arnold

Gordon R. Arnold

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
### Water resources of the Atlanta metropolitan area

By: R. W. CarterStephen M. Herrick

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir148

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
September 15, 1942

No. 47578.

#### Protests 9400-K, etc., of Theo. L. Stern *&*Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Houston Lee Arrowood v. State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00912

- CV

Trial court case number: 11JV0116

Trial court: County Court at Law No

. 2 of Galvesto n County

Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief is denied

. Appellant’s brief in this case was originally due on February 25, 2013. It is the ordinary practice of this court to grant no more than 3 extensions of 30 days each. With his first motion for extension of time, appellant’s counsel requested, and received, an extension of 60 days, to April 29, 2013. Appellant’s counsel next requested an additional 120 days to file the brief, because he was “busy with several serious trials ove r the next 120 days an d needs the additional time.” We noted that this explanation did not support counsel’s extraordinary request that he be permitted to file appellant’s brief nearly six months after the brief originally became due. We granted the requ est in part and denied the request in part, and ordered counsel to file the brief by June 28, 2013. Counsel was notified that no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Appellant’s counsel is now requesting , for the second time, an additional 120 days to file the brief, extending the deadline to file the brief to October 28, 2013 . The reason given for this lengthy extension request is identical to the reason given in the previous motion for extension: “[c]urrently appellate [sic] is busy with several serious trials over the next 120 days an d needs the additional time.” Again, t his does not support counsel’s extraordinary request that he be permitted to file appellant’s brief nearly seven months after the brief originally be came due.

Accordingly, counsel is hereby ORDERED to file appellant’s brief within 3 0 days of the

date of this order

. This is an appeal from a delinquency proceeding, and although delinquency proceedings are civil proceedings, the y are quasi

- criminal in na ture. See In re M.P.A. , 364 S.W.3d 277, 282 n. 2 (Tex. 2012). Accordingly, i f appellant’s brief is not filed by the deadline, this Court will abate this case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether counsel should be held in contempt for fai ling to comply with an order of this court, whether substitute counsel should be appointed for the appellant, and for further appropriate findings and recommendations.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8.

It is so ORDERED.Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle  A cting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ July 9, 2013

____________________
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6048.

Invoices dated Sonneberg, Germany, June 21, 1938, etc.

Certified June 24, 1938, etc.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., July 16, 1938, etc.

Entry No. 133/2, etc.

(Decided August 22, 1944)

*Sharretts & Eillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the cases listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, are in all material respects the samp as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by reappraise-ments 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. S. *S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co., Corp., Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed, that on the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved in the cases listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the *370usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the per *se*unit invoice prices, plus 3% per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeals are abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed, that the record in *United States*v. S. *S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein and that the said appeals to reappraisement are submitted on this 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 represented on the invoices by the items marked “xx” in green ink and the initials CHE. of Examiner Charles TI. Eitz, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3y2*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.*

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsProbabilistic Sensitivity Analyses Incorporating Surrogate Models for the Structural Response of a Representative Inflatable Space StructureThis study concentrates on results from probabilistic analysis and numerical simulation tools to identify parameter sensitivities and assess surrogate model suitability for a novel inflatable airlock concept, specifically the Non-Axisymmetric Inflatable Pressure Structure (NAIPS) under NASA's Minimalistic Advanced Softgoods Hatch (MASH) Program. The current studies extended the demonstration of probabilistic analysis tools to identify parameter sensitivities by: incorporating nonlinear material load-strain property curves and orthotropic representation of the fabric; and exploring the use of surrogate models to facilitate rapid evaluations as new information becomes available, as well as enable optimizations. The airlock model has been simplified to focus on the end dome section. Brief overviews of the finite element model and associated surrogate models are provided along with the probabilistic sensitivity analysis approaches. Responses of interest include the sensitivities of various loads in the structural elements of the NAIPS to material properties, cord lengths, inflation pressure and friction between softgoods components. The use of surrogate models was explored to facilitate rapid sensitivity evaluations as parameter ranges change. The completion of the sensitivity studies improved understanding of the dependence of load responses to several uncertain parameters and confidence in the ability to use surrogate models to represent the finite element simulations.Document ID20180006318Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLyle, Karen H.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Jones, Thomas C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 16, 2018Publication DateAugust 1, 2018Subject CategoryComputer SystemsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2018-220082L-20952NF1676L-30781Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 089407.01.23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180006318.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 10.9


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                          BIOSOURCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                            1993 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

     This AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE to the 1993 Stock Incentive Plan (the "PLAN") of
BioSource International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), is made
as of this 17th day of December, 1998.

                                 R E C I T A L S

     A. In December of 1993, the Company adopted the Plan for the purpose of
enabling the Company to obtain and retain the services of the types of
employees, consultants, officers and Directors who would contribute to the
Company's long range success and providing incentives which are linked directly
to increases in share value which would inure to the benefit of all shareholders
of the Company.

     B. Article 9 of the Plan requires that the stockholders of the Company
approve certain amendments to the Plan.

     C. Since the adoption of the Plan, and its approval by the stockholders of
the Company, there have been changes in Rule 16b-3 under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and the regulations of the Nasdaq NMS eliminating the requirement
of stockholder approval for certain changes to the Plan.

     D. The Company now desires to amend the Plan as it relates to stockholder
approval to be consistent with the changes in the law and Nasdaq regulations,
and to increase the number of shares authorized to be issued thereunder.

                                A G R E E M E N T

     NOW THEREFORE, in furtherance of the above-stated purpose of the Plan, the
Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     1. Article 9 of the Plan is hereby amended. The text formerly in Article 9
is hereby stricken and eliminated, and Article 9 shall hereafter read as
follows:

                                    ARTICLE 9
                            AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION

     The Board may amend, alter or discontinue the Plan at any time, pursuant to
the discretion of the Board.


<PAGE>


     2. Section 4.1 of Article 4 of the Plan is hereby amended to increase the
total number of shares of Stock (as defined in the Plan) reserved and available
for issuance under the Plan to 2,000,000 shares of Stock (an increase of 500,000
Shares).


                                   EX-10-9 - 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNIFAB
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              31
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,412
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,848
<PP&E>                                          45,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,637
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,829
<SALES>                                         42,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,905
<CGS>                                           40,743
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,295
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,138)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,029)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,109)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,109)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)


</TABLE>
No. 56690.

protests 179624-K, etc. (New York).

#### Doulton & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 50657.

#### Protests 19497-K, etc., of Geo. E. Mallinson Importing Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the.merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20518-20519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7867]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-173]


CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated 
Rate Filing

April 19, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 13, 2007, CenterPoint Energy Gas 
Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing and approval two 
negotiated rate agreements between CEGT and XTO Energy, Inc.
    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

[[Page 20519]]

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#40060512030f2e2c292e25133530302f323400262532236e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="52141700111d3c3e3b3c37012722223d202612343720317c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7867 Filed 4-24-07; 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>