alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 48178.

#### Protest 607634-G of Olivier Straw Goods Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the harvest hats in question are the same as those the subject of *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), those hats withdrawn for consumption prior to February 1, 1936 were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those entered or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to that date were held dutiable at 12)4 percent .under said paragraph and the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075). The protest was therefore sustained to that extent.
No. 55638.

#### C. Parsons & Son, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 48386-K, etc. (Boston).

*453Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *The Otto Gerdau Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 24, C. D. 1120) and *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(id. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved.
EX-10.10






PROMISSORY NOTE




November 1, 2007



FOR VALUE RECEIVED, NNN APARTMENT REIT, INC., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”) hereby
unconditionally promises to pay to the order of WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national
banking association (the “Lender”), at the office of WACHOVIA BANK, located at One Wachovia Center,
TW-16, 301 South College Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28288-0172, in lawful money of the
United States and in immediately available funds, on the dates required under that certain Loan
Agreement dated as of November 1, 2007 by and between the Company and the Lender (as the same may
be amended, extended or replaced from time to time, the “Agreement” and with the capitalized terms
not otherwise defined herein used with the meanings given such terms in the Agreement), the sum of
$10,000,000.00, the principal amount of the Loan made under the Agreement, or such lesser amount as
has been actually disbursed to the Company by the Lender from time to time pursuant to the
Agreement.



The Company further agrees to pay interest in like money and funds at the office of the Lender
referred to above, on the unpaid principal balance hereof from the date advanced until paid in full
on the dates and at the applicable rates set forth in the Agreement. The holder of this Note is
hereby authorized to record the date and amount of each payment of principal and interest, and
applicable interest rates and other information with respect thereto, on the schedules annexed to
and constituting a part of this Note (or by any analogous method the holder hereof may elect
consistent with its customary practices) and any such recordation shall, absent manifest error,
constitute prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the information so recorded;
provided, however, that the failure to make a notation or the inaccuracy of any notation shall not
limit or otherwise affect the obligations of the Company under the Note, the Agreement or any other
documents which may evidence or govern this indebtedness.



This Note is the Note referred to in, and is entitled to all the benefits of, the Agreement.
Reference is hereby made to the Agreement for rights and obligations of payment and prepayment,
Events of Default and the rights of acceleration of the maturity hereof upon the occurrence of an
Event of Default.



1



This Note shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of
North Carolina, and is being executed by the duly authorized officers of the Company as of the day
and year first above written.




NNN APARTMENT REIT, INC.,


a Maryland corporation




By: /s/ Stanley J. Olander, Jr.

Name: Stanley J. Olander, Jr.

Title: CEO and President





2
1590 N. Roberts Rd., Ste 102 

Kennesaw, GA 30144 

Subject: Letter of Support for Area-l FAA Section 333 Exemption Request 

Dear Dr. Alley, 

NASA is pleased to express its support of Area-l's Section 333 exemption request. NASA and 

Area-l have a long standing relationship in the development and testing ofumrianned aircraft 

systems (UAS) and related technologies to advance the state-of-the-art in UAS for the 

improvement of aviation safety and integration ofUAS into the National Airspace System 

(NAS). As a result, NASA has sponsored nine programs for Area-l with approximately 

$2,250,000 awarded resulting in four flight test programs and two aircraft delivered to NASA for 

further flight testing experiments. 

NASA has confidence in the ability of Area-l to safely and effectively conduct UAS flights 

under the provision allowed by the Section 333 exemption. NASA personnel have personally 

witnessed Area-l flight tests and procedures which include a methodical series of safety 

briefings, checklists, and contact with local authorities and airmen to ensure overall safety and 

flight test success. 

Finally, NASA will directly benefit from the SMB Section 333 exemption, which Area-l will 

utilize to perform flight test experiments testing newly developed technology to increase the 

safety ofUAS operations in the NASby decreasing UAS operator workload in complex 

operational environments. 

Respectfully, Bruce Cogan 

Engineer, Flight Controls and Dynamics Research 

NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center
No. 96-6053.

#### Prado *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### F. R. Tripler & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6885.

Entry No. 770489, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, April 18, 1946, etc.

Certified April 18, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 24, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 17, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman (J. L. Klingaman*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cqle, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administra*393tive Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts established that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, David Foden, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Hugo International Telecom Inc. (the "Registrant"), certifies that
to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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




      /s/David Foden
------------------------------------
Name: David Foden
Date: November 19, 2002


                                      -1-
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

131) IV-C-97 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:58 AM Sheet 131 of 232 
'<' Pf,0*t° 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

MAR

 ! •=• IQ! 0 loo- o 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Barbara Mikulski 

United States Senate 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator Mikulski: 

Thank you for your letter of February 29, 1988, forwarding 

a letter from one of your constituents, Mr. Samuel Wright, 

expressing his views of EPA's proposal to require onboard 

refueling emission controls. 

We note by Mr. Wright's letter to you that he did send 

his comments concerning the proposed onboard fuel vapor 

recovery system to the public docket on February 10. We 

appreciate receiving comments such as those from Mr. Wright, 

and you can be assured they will be carefully considered 

along with many others we have received on this important 

issue. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

RICHARD D. WILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 
P.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

APR I 2 1988 

CENTRAL DOCKET 

SECTION
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          97,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,331
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,331
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,870)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.002)


</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9679)

#### Bunge Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 749183.

(Decided April 25, 1960)

*Eugene R. Piclcrell*for the plaintiff.

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

*675Ford, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issue in the appeal for reappraisement noted above is the same in all material respects as the issue in the case of *United States*vs. *Shamash & Sons, Inc.,*A.R.D. 41, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the silk flat crepe involved herein, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers 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, 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 in the United States, was 96 cents per yard, packed, and that the price for home consumption was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the case may be deemed submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and hold 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 here involved, and that such statutory value is 96 cents per yard, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Lockwood Jwlrs. *v.*United States

No. 7873.

Entry No. 715533.

(Decided August 29, 1950)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawkeNCE, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of this appeal are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Go.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by this appeal was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2012319EN.01001401.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/14

---

Action brought on 20 August 2012 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (EUROPEAN IP ZONE)

(Case T-371/12)

2012/C 319/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda, and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1453/2011-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1453/2011-2;

| — | In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1453/2011-2, and rule that the appeal is justified; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1453/2011-2, and rule that the appeal is justified; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROPEAN IP ZONE’ for services in class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9488041

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2012243EN.01002102.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/21

---

Action brought on 29 may 2012 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola EOOD (ULTRA CHOCO)

(Case T-232/12)

2012/C 243/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: E. Miller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agroekola EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2012 in case R 87/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2012 in case R 87/2012-1;

| — | Order OHIM to consider the appeal filed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 November 2011 on opposition No B001760043 and to process in the normal course. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to consider the appeal filed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 November 2011 on opposition No B001760043 and to process in the normal course.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTRA CHOCO’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 9221111

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Singaporean trade mark registration T0113987B of the word mark ‘ultra choco’ for goods in class 29; European and Bulgarian non-registered trade mark ‘ULTRA CHOCO’, invoking Articles 8(3) and 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Deemed the appeal not to have been filed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(3)(a)(ii) and (b) and 8(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

Pleas in law:

---
No. 47115.

#### Protests 934224-G, etc., of Garfunkel Makers, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed by counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of hemp knotted straw hats, not blocked or trimmed, and not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, and that they are similar to those involved in Abstract 46497. In accordance therewith they were held dutiable at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
#### Gondrand Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6222.

Invoices dated Beograd, Yugoslavia, February 9, 1939, etc.

Certified February 11, 1939, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 13, 1939, etc.

Entry No. 24207, etc.

(Dated October 11, 1945)

*Lamb & Lerch*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

This case was before me originally for the purpose of finding values for the involved merchandise, the decision being rendered under date of July 26, 1945, and reported as Reap. Dec. *429<6196. The case is before me at this time by reason, of a remand from the Appellate Division, wherein:

> * * * the trial court is directed to take only such further proceedings as ■may be necessary to furnish the appellate court a proper record; * * *.

My original decision contained Jibe following statement:

> Counsel for the defendant offered, and there were received in evidence four reports from special agents, which deal primarily with the question of the cost of production of the merchandise, and with the question of fraud, with neither of which questions am I here concerned.

The above statement was in error in that there were received in evidence only three special agent’s reports, one special agent’s report being marked exhibit 8 for identification only.

As indicated by the above quotation, exhibit 8 for identification did not in any way influence the conclusion reached in my original decision, since this report deals primarily with the question of cost of production, which question was not involved in the case as originally presented.

In view of the above, and after a careful examination of the record I find that this record, as certified by the clerk on August 29, 1945, was correctly certified, and the Clerk of the Court will, therefore, recertify the record to the Appellate Division, as directed in the remand.
No. 39261.

Suit 4135.

#### Page *& Jones*v. *United States.*

T. D. 49132 affirmed.
DOE Designs - 2011/09/09 LF Engineering Data File

Lowest Price Designs in a dEL Range by Core Material - PGE Analysis 11/6/11

DL4 - 150 kVA 3-Phase Padmount DL5 - 1500 kVA 3-Phase Padmount

M3 M2 ZDMH SA1 M3 M2 ZDMH SA1

dEL0 $ 5,362 $ 5,427 $ 4,915 $ 6,035 dEL0 $ 24,853 $ 24,663 $ 23,085 $ 24,555

dEL1 $ 6,422 $ 5,891 $ 5,489 $ 6,035 dEL1 $ 30,332 $ 31,539 $ 26,977 $ 26,770

dEL2 $ 7,854 $ 7,583 $ 6,310 $ 6,035 dEL2 $ 37,387 $ 33,901 $ 30,684 $ 27,128

dEL3 $ 9,009 $ 6,891 $ 6,035 dEL3 $ 37,915 $ 28,862

dEL4 $ 9,281 $ 6,035 dEL4 $ 29,904

dEL5 $ 6,093 dEL5 $ 33,062

TRP - 11/6/2011

$4,700 

$5,700 

$6,700 

$7,700 

$8,700 

$9,700 

dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4 dEL5

M3

M2

ZDMH

SA1

$22,000 

$24,000 

$26,000 

$28,000 

$30,000 

$32,000 

$34,000 

$36,000 

$38,000 

dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4 dEL5

M3

M2

ZDMH

SA1

DOE Designs Simplified Plots with Data - 2011-09-09 Engineering Data File - PGE Analysis 2011-11-06 - R1.xls - DL4 and 5