alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 20, 2006, Organix Inc., 240 Salem Street, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. 

The company plans on manufacturing this controlled substance for sale to its customers. These customers will sell the drug in small quantities for research purposes or as drug standards for forensic laboratories. 

Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). 

                    Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537,                     *Attention:*                     DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters,                     *Attention:*                     DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than March 26, 2007.                 

 Dated: January 16, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. 

 [FR Doc. E7-851 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Company's Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1997 and the Statement Of Income
for the period ended September 30, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          84,124
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,326,984
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,411,108
<PP&E>                                       7,995,908
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,878,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,549,423<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,709<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (532,846)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,549,423<F3>
<SALES>                                      2,128,852<F4>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,128,852
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               201,489<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             200,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,726,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,726,383
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,726,383
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 2,397.75<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 2,397.75<F6>
<FN>
<F1>Includes unamortized mortgage refinancing costs
<F2>Accrued interest on mortgage, and first mortgage principal payments 
    due within one year
<F4>Includes long-term debt 
<F4>Rental income includes basic rent and advance of primary overage rent
<F5>Supervisory services and amortization of mortgage refinance costs
<F6>Earnings per $5,000 participation unit, based on 720 participation units
    outstanding during the period
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR HYDROMAID INTERNATIONAL, INC., A
DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          20,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    479,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               530,262
<PP&E>                                         555,841<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,254,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          448,115
<BONDS>                                         29,964<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     752,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,254,395
<SALES>                                         54,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,828
<CGS>                                           53,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,905,629<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,904,741)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,904,741)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,904,741)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)<F4>
<FN>
<F1>GROSS INVESTMENT IN PP&E, I.E., BEFORE DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION
<F2>NOTE PAYABLE
<F3>OPERATING EXPENSE 3,259,385; R&D 647,139.
<F4>DILUTIVE EFFECT LESS THAN REPORTABLE LEVEL.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case Wo. 9,978.

#### MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. v. The S. G. ANDREWS.

[10 Chi. Leg. News, 149.]

District Court, N. D. Illinois.

1878.

Insurance Premium kot a Maritime Lien on Vessel.

In admiralty.

Charles E. Kremer, for libelant.

Rae & Mitchell, for respondent.

BLODGETT, District Judge.

These cases are before the court upon exceptions to the commissioner’s report as to the claim which was filed by the Millville Mutual Fire Insurance Company, for premiums on policies of insurance, issued upon the vessel in question. The commissioner, upon reference to him, allowed the libellant’s claim for these premiums, as a lien upon the vessel. He did this upon the authority of a case lately decided by his honor, Judge Brown, of the Eastern district of Michigan, assuming that this court would follow that case, as it was directly in point. With all due respect to the learning which is displayed in that decision, I have never been entirely satisfied to follow it, and the best authority we have in this circuit is the other way. The learned circuit judge of this circuit, when district judge in 1869, had before him the case of The Security Fire Ins. Co. v. The Proceeds of the Lady Franklin [unreported], and after due consideration, dismissed the case upon the ground that a debt incurred for premium for insurance on the vessel did not create a maritime lien.

In this case it is not necessary to decide that question in as broad a sense, because it may be a debt against the owners of the vessel which would have a right to participate in the remnants, if there were any remnants. But here thdre are no remnants or will be none after the satisfaction of the maritime liens proper. I don’t intend in making this decision to do any more than intimate my own views. I have not gone to the labor of writing out an opinion, nor have I attempted to cite any authorities, I would prefer that the question should be taken to the circuit court, and have an authoritative decision of this circuit on that question. I rule as I do because it is in accordance with my own conviction of what the law should be, and because I think until the law is definitely settled the other way in this circuit, that this class of claims should be rejected, and complications avoided growing out of the allowance of claims which may hereafter be held not to be properly enforcible in this form of procedure.

Exception to the commissioner’s report is sustained.

It is due to Judge Drummond, that I should here say that his opinion in the Lady Franklin Case was never reported, and I have only been able to gather the purport of it from the recollection of counsel, and some brief notes in one of the daily newspapers of the city.
! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 ! (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 " (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 # (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 $ )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 $ 

3 0 , *( )0 3 06 2 6 7 6 8 9 0 )7
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . / 01 20 3 4 0 ) 5 ! . 5 ! 5 $ !

: 0' ;< =0 > ? & @ A > B > ? @C D E B > A E F B @ G @ B B H C > ? &

B H E H ? ? > B D D I J ? H E D E I ? & K L ! K H B M / @ A J > ? > ? /

? @C D E & F H M & ? H H N I D / @? G D E > O H
No. 48787.

#### Protests 726101-G, etc., of Douglas Gordon Carroll et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNITED STATES

Appellee



### v.

Adam N. MONTGOMERY

Chief Electronics Technician (Nuclear Power ) (E

- 7 )

U.S. Navy

Appellant NMCCA NO. 202 100342

Panel 2

ORDER

Granting Appellant’s Motion
to Withdraw Case from
Appellate Review

Upon consideration of A ppellant ’ s Motion to Withdraw Case from Appellate
Review, filed on 1 1 March 2022 , we have determined that A ppellant ’ s request
was properly executed and submitted, and is in substantial compliance with
Article 61, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 861, and Rule for

Courts

- Martial 111 5

. Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 1 4 th day of March 202 2

,

ORDERED:

(1) That A ppellant ’ s Motion to Withdraw Appellate Review is GRANTED

. ( 2 ) That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for
appropriate disposition.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

Copy to:
45 ( LT Beach )

46

02
Exhibit
      32.2











**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. 1350)**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Competitive Technologies, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Michael D. Davidson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to
      my
      knowledge:





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





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








/s/ Michael
      D. Davidson


Michael
      D. Davidson


Senior
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


December
      14, 2006
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
ZIYAD YAGHI , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr - 00216

- FL

- 8 ; 5:15

- cv - 00523

- FL )

Submitted : April 27, 2021 Decided: May 3, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ziyad Yaghi , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker , Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers , Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ziyad Yaghi appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. * Our review of the record confirms that the
distri ct court properly construed Yaghi ’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from
this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae , 793 F.3d at 397

- 400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Yaghi’s notice of appeal and informal briefs as an application
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Yaghi’s
claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
# C_2016191EN.01000303.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/3

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Mr Carsten Bopp against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2015 in Case T-209/14 Carsten Bopp v European Union Intellectual Property Office

Carsten Bopp

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-653/15 P)

(2016/C 191/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carsten Bopp (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 7 April 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided that the appellant must bear his own costs.

---
Before the Second Division,

September 15, 1943

No. 48763.

#### Protests 906748-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The established facts showed that certain of the items are similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. The claim at only 25 percent was sustained as to these items.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hector LARIOS-VARGAS, a/k/a Hector Mendiola, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-30023.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

James P. Hagarty, Esq., USYA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nicholas W. Marchi, Esq., Carney *&*Marchi, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Larios-Vargas appeals his 57-month sentence following his guilty plea *855conviction to being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we remand the sentence.

Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court for further proceedings consistent with *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Hermoso-Garcia,*413 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005).

SENTENCE REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

          - [TA-W-61,362] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 23, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Bayer Clothing Group Inc., Target Sales Corp., Naperville, Illinois. 

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active amended certification (TA-W-59,299B) which expires on May 31, 2008. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of May, 2007 

Linda G. Poole 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-9110 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
(Reap. Dec. 9848)

#### Southern Pipe *&*Supply Company *v.*United States

Entry No. J-822, etc.

(Decided November 22, 1960)

*James M. Roberts, Joseph M. Glide stein,*and *McCarthy Crenshaw*for the plaintiff.

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

LawRence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain forged steel flanges exported from West Germany.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed that the market value or the price of the imported merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all pur*562chasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was the red-ink unit values set forth on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by said appeals, plus export packing. It was further agreed that there was no higher foreign value.

Upon the agreed facts before the court, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis of value for the forged steel flanges in issue and that said value is the red-ink unit values set forth on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the instant appeals, plus export packing.

Judgment will issue accordingly.