alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc.: Exhibit 10.43 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.43 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

Amendment No. 1 dated November 3, 2016 (this “Amendment”) to
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 5, 2016 (the “Agreement”),
by and between Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
“Company”) and N2 Partners Ltd., a Bahamian corporation
(“Purchaser”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Purchaser desire to amend the
Agreement to change the date of closing. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and
agreements set forth herein, the Company and Purchaser hereby agree as follows:


1.         
Change of Date of Closing. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended
to provide that the date of Closing (as defined in the Agreement) shall be
December 12, 2016. 

2.          No
Further Changes. Except as amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain unchanged 

3.         
Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York. 

4.         
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be
an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same
agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment on the date first written above. 

NET 1 UEPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

By:/s/ Herman G. Kotzé
Herman G. Kotzé
Chief
Financial Officer 

N2 PARTNERS LTD. 
By: /s/WND Limited 
WND Limited,
Director
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE A. TISON, Executor/

Administrator for the

ESTATE OF CHARLES G. TISON,

NO. CIV. S-04-1997 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of a motion by defendant to dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary

judgment. Defendant has noticed the motion for hearing on the

court’s January 17, 2006 law and motion calendar. Pursuant to the

court’s Status Order issued on July 22, 2005, law and motion was

to be completed by January 15, 2006. Specifically, the order

provides that “completed” means that all law and motion matters

must be heard by the January 15, 2006 deadline. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-01997-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for

summary judgment is therefore untimely and is denied as such.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01997-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 54681.

#### Belgard & Frank, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 143527-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11075-11076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4377]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Maine District Advisory Council; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration Maine District Advisory 
Council, located in the geographical area of Augusta, Maine will hold a 
public meeting on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, starting at 10 a.m. The 
meeting will be held at Husson College, Center for Family Business, One 
College Circle, Bangor, ME 04401.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following topics: (1) 
SBA Small Business Week; (2) Lender update (centralized processing, 
participating and lender forms); (3) Updates by SCORE; Maine Small 
Business Development Center and Women's Business Center; (4) An 
overview of SBA's Alternate Work Site in Bangor, Maine presented by 
Herb Thomas, Senior Area Manager.
    For further information, write or call Mary McAleney, District 
Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, Maine District Office, 68 
Sewall Street, Room

[[Page 11076]]

512, Augusta, Maine 04330, (207) 622-8386 phone, (207) 622-8277 fax.

Matthew L. Teague,
Committee Manager Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-4377 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID C. RIVERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2524 GEB EFB P

vs.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendant request an extension of time to file and serve a response to the complaint. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).

Defendants’ September 8, 2006, request is granted and defendants have 30 days from the

date this order is served to file and serve a response to the complaint.

So ordered. 

Dated: September 29, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 1
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-215.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AVIATION 

Transport Services 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and LIBERIA 

Signed at Washington February 15, 2007 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 LIBERIA 

Civil Aviation: Transport Services 

 Agreement signed at Washington 

 February 15, 2007; 

 Entered into force February 15, 2007. 

 With annexes.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAUL ESTEBAN RUBIO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 73138

Agency No. A097

- 577

- 845

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 21, 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges

.

Raul Esteban Rubio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his motion to

terminate . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

* 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

JUL 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 73138

questions of law

. Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 116 3, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We

grant the petition for review and remand.

Rubio was charged with removability based on his conviction under Nevada

Revised Statutes (“NRS”) § 195.030. The agency sustained the charge , determined

the conviction was an aggravate d felony offense related to obstruction of justice,

and ordered Rubio removed. Our recent decision, Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr

,

968 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020), held that “California Penal Code [(“CPC”)]

§ 32 is not a categorical match with obstruction of justice under [Immigration and

Nationality Act] § 101(a)(43)(S) because California ’ s statute encompasses

interference with proceedings or investigations that are not pending or ongoing

. ”

The text of NRS § 195.030 proscribes conduct analogou s to that at issue in CPC

§ 32. Thus, the sole charge of removability against Rubio cannot be sustained.

We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order.

See Andia v. Ashcroft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the

decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If

we conclude that th e BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we

must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
No. 55980.

protests 169471-K, etc. (New York).

#### Young P. Lee et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 56455.

protests 170583-K, etc. (Tampa).

#### Air Express International *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HODGES,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

Civ. S-04-2087 MCE KJM-P

SCHEDULING ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that respondent shall have until

January 13, 2006, to file an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus; no further extensions

of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Petitioner may file and 

serve a traverse within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

DATED: November 15, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02087-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 1
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRY J. WILLIBY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2560 DFL JFM P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested a second extension of time to file an amended complaint

pursuant to the court’s order of August 26, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 14, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an

amended complaint. No further extensions of time will be granted.

DATED: November 17, 2005.

12;will2560.36a

Case 2:04-cv-02560-JAM -JFM Document 10 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41388

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER NUNEZ-FLORES, also known as Javier Flores-Fernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-00-CR-305-1

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

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Nunez-Flores appeals the 72-month sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the

United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends first that the felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of

the offense that should have been charged in the indictment.

Nunez-Flores acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
No. 00-41388

-2-

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90, 496; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979,

984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). 

Nunez-Flores’s argument is foreclosed.

Nunez-Flores contends also that his indictment violated the

Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it lacked an allegation that

he acted with general intent. He acknowledges that his argument

is foreclosed by this court’s precedent in United States v.

Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

121 S. Ct. 2600 (2001), and, 250 F.3d 294, 299-300 (5th Cir.

2001), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jul. 24, 2001) (No. 01-

5535), but he wishes to preserve the issue for review by the

Supreme Court.

In Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d at 299-300, the court examined

language identical to the language in the Nunez-Flores’s

indictment and held that it sufficiently alleged a general intent

to reenter. Accordingly, Nunez-Flores’s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1804-1805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-383]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted via teleconference. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 1 p.m. 
Eastern Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227, or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988)

[[Page 1805]]

that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel (TAP) will be held Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 1 p.m. Eastern 
Time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the 
Joint Committee of TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-
912-1227 or (414) 231-2360, or write Barbara Toy, TAP Office, MS-1006-
MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-2105, or FAX to (414) 231-2363, 
or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the 
telephone conference call meeting must be made with Barbara Toy.
    The agenda will include the following: Discussion of issues and 
responses brought to the joint committee, office report, and discussion 
of next meeting.

    Dated: January 8, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E7-383 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 59560.

protest 173089-K/3369 (Chicago).

#### Clinton Foods, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The protest was dismissed.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**List ofSubsidiaries**

Blue Pumpkin Software LLC

Witness Systems Pty. Limited

Witness Systems, Software, Hardware Servicos de Brasil Ltda.

Witness Systems Canada, Inc.

Witness Systems Deutschland GmbH

Witness systems HK Limited

Witness Systems Software (India) Private Limited

Witness Systems, KK

Witness Systems (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

Witness Systems, S.A. de C.V.

Witness Systems Services S.A. de C.V.

Witness Systems, LLC

Witness Systems Holdings, Ltd.

Optimis Group Ltd

Blue PumpkinSoftware UK Ltd

Optimis Ltd

Witness Systems Ltd

Blue PumpkinSoftware Gmbh

Blue PumpkinSoftware Israel Ltd.

Exametric, Inc.

Demos ConsultingGroup Ltd.

Witness Amae Software, Inc.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4297 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4297

               To repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2024

  Mr. Tuberville (for himself, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
  Scott of Florida, Mr. Budd, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Vance, and Mrs. Hyde-
Smith) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
        to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Repealing Big Brother Overreach 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    (a) In General.--The Corporate Transparency Act (title LXIV of 
division F of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283; 134 Stat. 
4604)) and the amendments made by that Act are repealed.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Title 31, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) in section 5321(a)--
                            (i) in paragraph (1), by striking 
                        ``sections 5314, 5315, and 5336'' each place 
                        the term appears and inserting ``sections 5314 
                        and 5315''; and
                            (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking 
                        ``(except section 5336)'' each place the term 
                        appears; and
                    (B) in section 5322, by striking ``section 5315, 
                5324, or 5336'' each place the term appears and 
                inserting ``section 5315 or 5324''.
            (2) Title LXV of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 
        (division F of the of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-
        283; 134 Stat. 4604)) is amended--
                    (A) by repealing section 6502 (134 Stat. 4626); and
                    (B) in section 6509 (134 Stat. 4633)--
                            (i) by striking ``(a) In General.--
                        Subsection (l)'' and inserting ``Subsection 
                        (l)''; and
                            (ii) by striking subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7108

JASON W. MCDONALD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00448-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: June 28, 2018 Decided: July 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason W. McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason W. McDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissing McDonald’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will 

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district 

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When 

the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both 

that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDonald has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-10 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 4

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 60 Att. 9

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-10 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-10 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-10 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 4 of 4
(Reap. Dec. 9522)

#### L. E. McCullough & Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 2559; 1850.

(Decided October 15, 1959)

*Tomplcins & Tomplcins*for the plaintiff.

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

Olivee, Chief Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff, and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above specified reappraisement appeals consists of Palm leaf hat bodies imported from Mexico, similar in all material respects to the merchandise that was the subject of decision in the case of *International Hat Co.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 669, Reap. Dec. 9006, wherein it was held that an *8%*commission should not be included as a part of the export value; and that the issues involved in the above reappraisement appeals are similar in all material respects to the issues in said *International Hat Company*case, Reap. Dec. 9006, and that the record in said case of *International Hat Company,*Reap. Dec. 9006 may be incorporated in the said above cases.

> *507It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the said above reappraisement appeals less the 10% commission as added by the appraiser in his appraised values, are equal- to the market values or the prices at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Mexico, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher “foreign value” for such or similar merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following tlie cited decision on the law, I find and hold that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less 10 per centum commission, as added by the appraiser.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 48545.

#### Protests 32385-K, etc., of Eurasia Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of hats of ramie similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained as to this item.