U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Director

National Pollution Funds Center 

United States Coast Guard

NPFC CA MS 7100

US COAST GUARD

4200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1000 

Arlington, VA 20598-7100 

Staff Symbol: (CA) 

Phone: 

E-mail: arl-pf-npfcclaimsinfo@uscg.mil

Fax: 202-493-6937 

5890 

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 13 December 2011

Number: 7011 1570 0001 4802 5657

Millstein & Associates

David J. Millstein, Esq.

The Audiffred Building

100 The Embarcadero, Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94105

RE: Claim Number: N10036-1539 

Dear Mr. Millstein: 

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990, 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (OPA) and the associated regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 136, 

denies payment on the claim number N10036-1539 involving Deepwater Horizon. Please see 

the attached Claim Summary / Determination Form for further explanation.

You may make a written request for reconsideration of this claim. The reconsideration must 

be received by the NPFC within 60 days of the date of this letter and must include the factual 

or legal basis of the request for reconsideration, providing any additional support for the 

claim. However, if you find that you will be unable to gather particular information within 

the time period, you may include a request for an extension of time for a specified duration 

with your reconsideration request. 

Reconsideration of the denial will be based upon the information provided. A claim may be 

reconsidered only once. Disposition of that reconsideration in writing will constitute final 

agency action. Failure of the NPFC to issue a written decision within 90 days after receipt of 

a timely request for reconsideration shall, at the option of the claimant, be deemed final 

agency action. All correspondence should include claim number N10036-1539. 
Mail reconsideration requests to:

Director (ca)

NPFC CA MS 7100

US COAST GUARD

4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 20598-7100

Sincerely,

Claims Adjudication Division

National Pollution Funds Center

U.S. Coast Guard

Enclosure: (1) Claim Summary / Determination Form

(2) Documentation Presented by the Claimant, N10036-1539

Copy to: H&T Co.

Hung V. Nguyen

1900 E. 17th Street, #B

Oakland CA 94606

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Number: 7011 1570 0001 4802 5664
CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : N10036-1539

Claimant : H & T Co.

Type of Claimant : Private (US)

Type of Claim : Loss of Profits and Earning Capacity

Amount Requested : $25,000.00

FACTS

On or about 20 April 2010, the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon (Deepwater 

Horizon) exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the explosion and sinking, oil 

was discharged. The Coast Guard designated the source of the discharge and identified BP as a 

responsible party (RP). BP accepted the designation and advertised its OPA claims process. On 

23 August 2010, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) began accepting and adjudicating 

certain individual and business claims on behalf of BP.

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT

On 20 October 2011, David J. Millstein, Esq., on behalf of H&T Co. (jointly referred to as 

“Claimant”) presented a claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) for $25,000.00 in 

loss of profits and impairment of earnings capacity resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill.1

 The Claimant is an Oakland, California, importer of shrimp from Mississippi and 

indicates that he sold to Asian-Americans in the San Francisco Bay area.

2

 The Claimant asserts 

that he was not able to purchase salt water shrimp after the oil spill 3 and that his business was 

ruined.4

The Claimant asserts having presented a claim to BP5 and was assigned claim number 6866-124-

541263.6

 Claimant also asserts having presented an Interim Payment (IP) Claim to the GCCF on 

31 January 2011 under claimant number 1099674.7

 The amounts claimed to BP and the GCCF 

were not provided. The Claimant indicates that the GCCF has denied his claim.8

APPLICABLE LAW 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), at 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable 

for removal costs and damages resulting from the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable 

waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone, as described in Section 2702(b) 

of OPA. 

The OSLTF which is administered by the NPFC, is available, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4) 

and § 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 136, to pay claims 

for uncompensated damages. One type of damages available pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 136.231 is 

1

 Claim letter signed 5 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011. 2

 Claim letter signed 5 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011. 3

 Claim letter signed 5 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011. 4

 Millstein & Associates letter to the NPFC dated 7 July 2010. 5

 Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed 3 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011. 6

 Header of undated documents providing licenses for Manh Nguyen and H&T Co. and one Sales Receipt provided 

to BP Claims.

7

 Millstein & Associates letter to the NPFC dated 14 October 2011. 8

 Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed 3 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011.

 
a claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury to or destruction of 

natural resources.

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.233 a claimant must establish the following:

(a) That real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, destroyed, or lost.

(b) That the claimant’s income was reduced as a consequence of injury to, destruction of, or 

loss of property or natural resources, and the amount of that reduction.

(c) The amount of the claimant’s profits or earnings in comparable periods and during the 

period when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as established by income tax 

returns, financial statements, and similar documents. In addition, comparative figures for 

profits or earnings for the same or similar activities outside of the area affected by the 

incident also must be established.

(d) Whether alternative employment or business was available and undertaken and, if so, the 

amount of income received. All income that a claimant received as a result of the 

incident must be clearly indicated and any saved overhead and other normal expenses not 

incurred as a result of the incident must be established. 

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.105(a) and § 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to 

the NPFC, all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, 

NPFC, to support the claim. 

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.235, the amount of compensation allowable for a claim involving loss of 

profits or impairment of earning capacity is limited to the actual net reduction or loss of earnings 

or profits suffered. Calculations for net reductions or losses must clearly reflect adjustments for 

—

(a) All income resulting from the incident;

(b) All income from alternative employment or business undertaken;

(c) Potential income from alternative employment or business not undertaken, but reasonably 

available;

(d) Any saved overhead or normal expenses not incurred as a result of the incident; and

(e) State, local, and Federal taxes.

DETERMINATION OF LOSS 

Claimant’s Submission to the OSLTF

Although not asserting that the claim was presented first to BP, the Claimant did present 

documentation to the NPFC that appears to have been presented to BP as part of an oil spill 

claim, indicating the assignment of claim number 6866-124-541263.9

 Claimant does assert 

having presented an Interim Payment (IP) Claim to the GCCF on 31 January 2011 under 

claimant number 1099674.10 The amounts claimed from BP and the GCCF were not provided, 

but the Claimant indicates that the GCCF denied his IP claim.11

9

 Header of undated documents providing licenses for Manh Nguyen and H &T Co. and one Sales Receipt provided 

to BP Claims.

10 Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed 3 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011 and Millstein & Associates 

letter to the NPFC dated 14 October 2011.

11 GCCF Denial Letter of 6 August 2011.

 
The Claimant presented this claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) on 20 October 

2011 in the amount of $25,000.00.12

The NPFC conducted an independent investigation and confirmed presentment, both to BP and 

to the GCCF.13 The NPFC was unable to confirm the amount of the claim to BP, but claim 

amounts to the GCCF were $45,000.00 and $82,500.00, respectively, for an EAP Claim to 

GCCF and an IP Claim to GCCF concerning lost wages/earnings.14 The NPFC also confirmed 

that Claimant Number 1099674 applied to the GCCF claims and that both have been denied.

To support this claim the Claimant presented a large amount of documentation, which is 

summarized in Enclosure (2).

The Claimant showed documentation that the fictitious name H&T Co. had been filed with Santa 

Clara County, California,15 that H&T Co. was issued a Seller’s Permit by California,16 a Health 

Permit had been issued by Santa Clara County17 and a Non-Resident Seafood Dealer Permit had 

been issued by the State of Mississippi.18

The Claimant presented financial documentation including H&T Co.’s Monthly Income 

Statements for 201019 and a number of Profit & Loss Statements for 2010.20 The Claimant also 

presented sales receipts and invoices for certain shrimp orders, the proprietor’s 2010 California 

tax return, and the proprietor’s 2010 Federal Form 1040 that includes H&T Co. as a personal 

business.21

The Claimant stated “[H&T Co.] was making betw[een] $5,000 to $7,000 per month profit. 

However, the spill occurred in May 2010 [and] business was ruined since he was not able to 

purchase salt water shrimp from his Mississippi distributors”.22

NPFC Determination

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), at 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable 

for removal costs and damages resulting from the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable 

waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone, as described in Section 2702(b) 

of OPA. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4) and § 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication 

regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 136, the OSLTF, which is administered by the NPFC, is available to 

pay claims for uncompensated damages.

12 Claim letter signed 3 October 2011 and received 12 October 2011. 13 GCCF – U.S. Coast Guard Report as of 21 November 2011. 14 GCCF – U.S. Coast Guard Report as of 21 November 2011. This report also indicates the Claimant’s having 

filed an additional IP Claim with the GCCF for Real/Personal Property damage, but this claim is not relevant to the 

claim before the NPFC. 15 Filing of Fictitious Business Name with Santa Clara County Clerk on 20 January 2010. 16 California State Board of Equalization Seller’s Permit issued 20 January 2010. 17 Santa Clara County Environmental Health Permit issued 4/2/2010 to CFM – H&T Co.

 

18 MS License 1022574, Non-Resident Seafood Dealer, issued to Hung Nguyen of H&T Co. on 7/27/2010 expiring 

4/30/2011.

19 H&T Co. Monthly Income Statements for January through May 2010. 20 H&T Co. Monthly Profit & Loss Statements for January 2010 through December 2010 and H&T Co.’s annual 

Profit & Loss Statement for January through December 2010.

21 Sales invoices and receipts for Hung Nguyen of the F/V ST. PETER (1-14-2010, 2-28-2010, 3-18-2010, 4-2-2010

and 4-12-2010); complete 2010 California Form 540; and complete 2010 Federal Form 1040, including Schedule C 

for H&T Co.

22 Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed 5 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011.

 
After an initial review, the NPFC sent the Claimant a letter requesting additional information to 

evaluate the claim further. The letter requested, among other things, additional financial 

documentation to support lost profits & earnings, as well as other documentation supporting and 

explaining how the Deepwater Horizon oil spill caused the Claimant’s losses. The Claimant was 

given 14 days to respond to the letter, dated 4 November 2011. 

On 11 November 2011, the Claimant responded in part to the information request by providing a 

letter with explanations, checking statements for mid-February through mid-June 2010, internet 

articles and blogs on the oil spill or seafood, two additional sales receipts, two letters from 

restaurant owner customers, and correspondence from the GCCF.23

The NPFC has considered all documentation presented by the Claimant.

The Claimant estimated losses of $25,000.00, the amount claimed, as the lowest net income he 

could have received for 2010 and the amount necessary for his company to survive 2010. 24

Regarding valuation of the lost profits claimed, the Claimant’s 2010 financial documentation for 

H&T Co. shows a net profit of $11,693.90.25 According to the Claimant, 2010 was the first year 

of operation for H&T Co., which was established at the end of January 2010.26 Tables 1 and 2 

below summarize H&T Co.’s 2010 Sales and Profit/Loss. Sales indicated in Table 1 are 

consistent with Gross Income reported in the Claimant’s 2010 tax return.27 Because H&T Co. 

began business in 2010, there is no historical information to which those profits can be 

compared.

Table 1 Table 2

Actual Sales for

2010 (from P&L)

Profit/Loss

for 2010 (from 

P&L)

January $0.00 January ($169.95)

February $5,066.25 February $973.42 

March $15,725.00 March $5,276.50 

April $14,825.01 April $5,178.93 

May $1,100.00 May $435.00

June June

July July

August August

September September

October October

November November

December December

TOTAL $36,716.26 TOTAL $11,693.90 

23 Millstein & Associates letter to the United States Coast Guard dated 11 November 2011. 24 Millstein & Associates letter to the United States Coast Guard dated 11 November 2011. 25 H&T Co’s monthly Profit & Loss Statements for January 2010 through December 2010 and H&T Co.’s annual 

Profit & Loss Statement for January through December 2010.

26 Millstein & Associates letter to the NPFC dated 11 November 2011 and Hung Nguyen’s Filing of Fictitious 

Business Name with Santa Clara County Clerk on 20 January 2010.

27 Line 1 of Schedule C (H&T Co), Hung Travis V. Nguyen 2010 tax Form 1040 with schedules and additional 

forms.

 
Table 3 below shows Daily Sales for April – May of 2010.28 In addition to Daily Sales for April 

– May, Table 3 also indicates that the Claimant’s daily sales trends in April did fluctuate 

significantly and, in late April and early May 2010, trends declined steadily, starting with sales 

reported on 29 April 2010.

Table 3

Daily Sales 

Total and Trend

(from P&L Detail) Trend

April 8 $1,575.00 ---

April 9 $1,706.00 8.3%

April 10 $1,496.25 -12.3%

April 11 $1,627.50 8.8%

April 12 $1,050.00 -35.5%

April 16 $1,925.00 83.3%

April 17 $1,650.00 -14.3%

April 25 $1,650.00 0.0%

April 29 $1,155.00 -30.0%

April 30 $990.00 -14.3%

May 1 $660.00 -33.3%

May 2 $440.00 -33.3%

Further, the Claimant’s financial records29 do not support assertions made in correspondence. 

Claimant asserts having distributed shrimp by way of local flea markets, farmers’ markets, and to 

other customers and restaurants in the [San Francisco] Bay Area.30 The Claimant’s financial 

details indicate sales only at the Capitol Flea Market and flea market entrance fees only for the 

Capitol Flea Market, no sales elsewhere.31 Those same financial details do reflect payment for 

“Gas to Biloxi” for two trips – a 14 May trip and a 29 May trip – as well as payments to Manh 

Nguyen as delivery fees on 5 May 2010 and 15 April 2010.32

In addition to its ending in May 2010, the Claimant’s financial documentation does not match the

Claimant's narrative of making one or two trips to Biloxi each month – Claimant’s records show 

indications of fuel charges only for two trips to Biloxi, but no other expenses in the five months 

for which financial documentation was provided. Further, there are no withdrawals from 

checking that indicate planning for cash purchases of shrimp in Biloxi or elsewhere. Likewise, 

there are no deposits in the Claimant’s checking account statements that support income received 

from sales at the flea market or from restaurant customers.

The Claimant stated that H&T Co. continued to sell other seafood products throughout 2010, but 

with very little income on shrimp, and stopped operating in May 2011.33 Claimant provided two 

purchase receipts from a local seafood vendor which appears to be dated 28 and 29 April 2010,34

28 H&T Co. monthly Profit & Loss Detail for April 2010 and May 2010. 29 H&T Co. Profit & Loss Statement Detail for January through December 2010. 30 Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed 5 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011, Millstein & Associates letter 

to the GCCF+- dated 7 July 2011. 31 H&T Co. Profit & Loss Statement Detail for January through December 2010. 32 H&T Co. Profit & Loss Statement Detail for January through December 2010: Gas to Biloxi costs are $485.00 

and $515.00; Delivery fees are $1,237.20 and $1,200.00. 33 Millstein & Associates letter to NPFC dated 11 November 2011. 34 Bills of Sale from Sunnyvale Seafood, Union City, CA.

 
but H&T Co’s financial records do not indicate sales of any non-shrimp seafood. H&T Co.’s 

financial documentation ends with 2 May 2010 sales.

Referring to Tables 1 and 2 below, summarized from H&T Co.’s Profit and Loss Statements, 

Claimant’s Sales in 2010 were $36,716.26 and Profit for 2010 was $11,693.90. All reported 

sales took place in February, March, April and May of 2010. In addition to the Cost of Goods 

Sold (Shrimp) the Claimant’s documented expenses include advertising, business licenses & 

permits, supplies, entrance fees to the flea market where the Claimant sold his goods, local fuel,

fuel to and from Biloxi, and shrimp delivery costs.

The Claimant has shown little documentation of ordering and paying for shrimp from 

Mississippi. In fact, the Claimant said that all communications with the distributors in 

Mississippi were done by cell phone; they do not communicate by email.35 Further, the 

Claimant has no check stub records to prove payments to the Mississippi distributors because 

they preferred cash payment.36 Although the Claimant provided a copy of bank statements for 

February, March, April, May and June of 2010,37 the NPFC found no cash withdrawals that 

correspond to the orders the Claimant indicates were placed. 

Documentation provided by the Claimant did include an order placed with St. Peter Seafood on 

14 January 2010 for 975 lbs of shrimp. This order was neither mentioned nor referenced in the 

Claimant’s other documentation, but it was about one week before the H&T Co. name was filed 

with Santa Clara County.38 

Documentation also included a Sales Receipt dated 28 February 2010 and signed by Mr. Hung 

Nguyen for 1,650 lbs of shrimp at $2.75 per lb. The price for delivery [to Oakland CA] was an 

additional $1,237.50. A Payment Stub is also provided, with no check number, and a 

handwritten note saying that 1500 lbs of jumbo shrimp were delivered at $2.90 per lb. Another 

Sales Receipt dated 12 April 2010 was provided, also signed by Mr. Hung Nguyen, for 1,600 lbs 

of shrimp at $2.75 per lb. The price for delivery of [to Oakland, CA] was an additional 

$1,200.00. The two delivery charges are reflected in H&T Co’s P&L Statements,39 but 

payments for shrimp are not included because the Claimant’s bookkeeping system is on a cash 

basis.

The Claimant has not documented that he has a viable, ongoing business with records that 

establish consistent income and resulting profits from selling shrimp.

Regarding the relationship of claimed losses to the oil spill, the NPFC asked the Claimant to 

provide evidence that there were concerns in the Bay Area regarding Gulf of Mexico shrimp.40 

On that issue, the Claimant provided twelve internet articles or blogs on the oil spill’s potential 

impact on seafood and shrimping. The earliest date of publication on any of these articles was 

on the Huffington Post blog on 2 May 2010.41 According to P&L Statement Details provided by 

the Claimant and summarized in Table 3 above, sales began to fall on 29 April 2010 and 

continued downward, with 2 May 2010 being the last day of recorded sales. This comparison 

35 Millstein & Associates letter to U.S. Coast Guard dated 11 November 2011. 36 Millstein & Associates letter to U.S. Coast Guard dated 11 November 2011. 37 Wells Fargo Custom Checking bank statements for Hung Van Travis Nguyen dated 17 February 2010, 16 March 

2010, 16 April 2010, 18 May 2010 and 16 June 2010.

38 Filing of Fictitious Business Name with Santa Clara County Clerk on 20 January 2010. 39 H&T Co. Profit & Loss Statement Details for March 2010 and for April 2010. 40 NPFC letter to Millstein & Associates dated 4 November 2011. 41 Fishing Closed By Oil Spill: Feds Ban Commercial And Recreational Fishing From Louisiana To Florida, posted 

05-02-10 02:55 PM, updated 05-03-10 02:40 PM, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/02, accessed 11/11/2011.

 
indicates that customer demand after the announcement of fishing and shrimping closures was 

not the beginning of the fall in sales.

The Claimant has also made two statements that do not point to the oil spill as the cause for a 

drop in sales. The Claimant cited a lack of cultural connection to his customer base, which are 

Vietnamese, Chinese, Hispanic and Laotian purchasers42 as reason for the Claimant’s lack of 

success in selling other seafood products. If these are the same purchasers of the Claimant’s 

shrimp, and correspondence indicates they are culturally the same market, a lack of cultural 

connection to his customer base may be the cause for the business’s decline.

The Claimant also stated that the oil spill was on national television and internet and “... [m]any 

[B]ay area people learned of this quickly with the spread of others and fears of contamination on 

any seafood, not just shrimp. ... [the Claimant] wouldn’t want to sell shrimps to his customers 

because of this.” This statement implies that it may have been the Claimant who voluntarily 

stopped selling shrimp, not customers who stopped buying them.

The Claimant’s sales records, the timing of articles presented, and the Claimant’s own statements 

indicate some cause or causes other than the closing of parts of the Gulf of Mexico to fishing and 

shrimping as the cause of the Claimant’s loss of shrimp sales.

Although the Claimant presented a copy of a Mississippi Non-Resident Seafood Dealer License 

issued to him on 27 July 2010, that license had not been purchased at the time the Claimant was 

operating his seafood sales in January through May 2010. Selling shrimp without a seafood 

dealer license would be a violation of Mississippi law.43 

This claim is denied for the following reasons: (1) Claimant has failed to meet the evidentiary 

burden to provide all evidence, information and documentation deemed necessary by the 

Director, NPFC, to support the claim; (2) Claimant has failed to demonstrate the alleged loss in 

the amount of $25,000.00 through financial documentation; and (3) Claimant has failed to 

demonstrate that the alleged loss is due to injury or destruction or loss of real or personal 

property or a natural resource as a result of a discharge or a substantial threat of a discharge of 

oil.

Claim Supervisor: NPFC Claims Adjudication Division

Date of Supervisor’s Review: 12/13/11

Supervisor’s Action: Denial approved

Supervisor’s Comments:

42 Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated 5 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011, and Millstein & Associates 

letter to the GCCF dated 7 July 2011.

43 Mississippi Code SEC. 49-15-28 requires any person buying or handling seafood secured from commercial 

fishermen, or from other wholesale dealers, for the purpose of resale, ... to be considered a wholesale dealer and 

shall obtain a license and pay an annual license fee of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).

 
Enclosure (2) Documentation Presented by Claimant

N10036-1539

Below is a listing of documentation provided by the Claimant:

• Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed 5 October 2011 and received 20 October 2011.

• Addendum to OSLTF Claim Form with additional information on witnesses and the full 

style of the legal representative.

• Millstein & Associates letter to the NPFC dated 14 October 2011.

• Millstein & Associates explanatory letter to the GCCF dated 7 July 2011.

• Millstein & Associates documentation letter to the GCCF dated 7 July 2011.

• California State Board of Equalization, Seller’s Permit SR X GH 101-345082 00002 GH, 

issued to H&T Co on 1/21/2010.

• Hung Nguyen’s Filing of Fictitious Business Name with Santa Clara County Clerk on 20 

January 2010.

• Santa Clara County Environmental Health Permit issued 4/2/2010 to CFM – H&T Co.

• Documents requested by BP Claim, including ─

− MS License 1018767, Interstate Commerce, issued to Manh Duc Nguyen and Hue 

Thi Nguyen of the boat ST PETER on 2 June 2009, expiring 30 April 2010.

− MS License 1018755, Shrimp Captain (over 45’), issued to Manh Duc Nguyen, 

Treiu V. Nguyen and Hue Thi Nguyen of the boat ST PETER on 2 June 2009, 

expiring 30 April 2010.

− MS License 1018766, Fishing Boat, issued to Manh Duc Nguyen and Hue Thi 

Nguyen of the boat ST PETER on 2 June 2009, expiring 30 April 2010.

− MS License 1022574, Non-Resident Seafood Dealer, issued to Hung Nguyen of 

H&T Co. on 7/27/2010 expiring 4/30/2011.

• Receipt dated 14 January 2010 issued to St. Peter Seafood for 975 lbs of 10/15 white, 

head-on shrimp.

• Sales Receipt dated 28 February 2010 issued to Hung Ngyuen for 1,650 lbs of 9/15 wild 

shrimp head-on, delivered.

• H&T Co Purchase Order No. 1 dated 28 February 2010 for 1,650 lbs of 9-15 Head-On 

Shrimp, delivered.

• Bill Payment Stub by H&T Co, paid to St. Peter – 651698 on 18 March 2010, Reference: 

St. Peter 1st Order.

• Bill Payment Stub by H&T Co, paid to St. Peter – 651698 on 2 April 2010, Reference: 

St. Peter 2nd Order.

• H&T Co Purchase Order No. 2 dated 12 April 2010 for 1,600 lbs of 9-15-Head-On 

Shrimp, delivered.

• Sales Receipt dated 12 April 2010 issued to Hung Ngyuen for 1,600 lbs of 9/15 wild 

shrimp head-on, delivered.

• San Jose Post-Record Proof of Publication of Fictitious Business Name Statement, 

publication beginning on 26 January 2010 and ending 16 February 2010.

• San Jose Post-Record Copy of Notice of Fictitious Business Name Statement, publication 

beginning on 26 January 2010 and ending 16 February 2010.

• Department of Environmental Health Receipt No. DEH 1459 dated 19 February 2010 to 

H&T Co. for a New Facility ID.

• eBay payment dated 4 January 2010 for digital price computing food scale, including 

picture of the scale.

• H&T Co Order for car magnets and business cards, with pictures.

• Undated order and payment information for Hatchbag Cargo Liner, with picture.
• GoDaddy.com, Inc. receipt dated 22 February 2010 for domain name registration: 

HNTCO.COM.

• Santa Clara County receipt dated 19 February 2010 for FSC for March 11, 2010, with 

attached check indicating “For: Food Service Class Cert.”

• Fictitious Business Name Statement for H&T Co., filed with Santa Clara County Clerk 

on 20 January 2010. 

• H&T Co Monthly Income Statements for January 2010 through May 2010 with BP 

submittal information.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement, January 2010 through May 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement, January 2010 through December 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement, 1 January 2010 through 11 July 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement, January 2010 through May 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement for January 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement for February 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement for March 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement for April 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Statement for May 2010.

• H&T Co Deposit Detail for January 2010.

• H&T Co Deposit Detail for February 2010.

• H&T Co Deposit Detail for March 2010.

• H&T Co Deposit Detail for April 2010.

• H&T Co Deposit Detail for May 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Detail for January 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Detail for February 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Detail for March 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Detail for April 2010.

• H&T Co Profit & Loss Detail for May 2010.

• 2010 Form 1040, with Schedules A, C (H&T Co), C (Bookkeeping), E, SE and M; Forms 

8812, 8889, 4562 (Sacto), and 4562 (Oakland); and Other Income Supporting Details.

• 2010 California Resident Income Tax Return Form 540 C1, Sides 1, 2, and 3.

• 2010 California Schedule W-2.

• 2010 California Adjustments – Residents, Sides 1 and 2.

• 2010 California Child and Dependent Care Expenses Credit, Form 3506, Side 1.

• 2010 California Passive Activity Loss Limitations, Form 3801, Sides 1, 2, and 3 with 

worksheet.

• Millstein & Associates letter to the NPFC dated 11 November 2011.

• Wells Fargo Custom Checking statement ending 17 February 2010.

• Wells Fargo Custom Checking statement ending 16 March 2010.

• Wells Fargo Custom Checking statement ending 16 April 2010.

• Wells Fargo Custom Checking statement ending 18 May 2010.

• Wells Fargo Custom Checking statement ending 16 June 2010.

• GCCF acknowledgement letter of 31 January 2011 to Millstein & Assoc.

• GCCF Deficiency Letter of 7 June 2011 to Millstein & Assoc.

• GCCF Denial Letter of Interim Payment Claim to Millstein & Assoc., dated 6 August 

2011.

• Gulf Oil Spill is Bad, but How Bad? New York Times, 3 May 2010.

• Seafood testing from Gulf oil disaster could last years, USA Today, 24 May 2010.

• Skeptics Wary of Seafood Safety as Shrimping Season Opens, ABC News, 16 August 

2010.
• Shrimping Season, The Cavalier Daily, 25 August 2010.

• www.synergy consultants.com/will-the-recent-gulf-coast-oil-spill-affect-your-restaurant?

Accessed on 11/11/2011 at 4:06 PM.

• Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010), The New Your Times “Times 

Topics”, 17 October 2011.

• Two Bill of Sale and Shipping receipts for seafood from Sunnyvale Seafood, Union City, 

CA.

• Katie Nguyen letter to National Pollution Funds Center dated 10 November 2011.

• Brenden Lam letter to National Pollution Funds Center dated 10 November 2011.

• Fishermen Flout Ban In Gulf, Despite Oil Spill, 25 June 2010 from http://www.npr:org/

templates/story/story.php?storyID-128091538, accessed 11/11/2011.

• How Will The Gulf Oil Spill Affect Human Health? 23 June 2010, from 

http://www.npr:org/tempates/story/ story.php?storyID-128008826, accessed 11/11/2011.

• Fishing Closed By Oil Spill: Feds Ban Commercial And Recreational Fishing From 

Louisiana To Florida, posted 05-02-10 02:55 PM, updated 05-03-10 02:40 PM,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/02, accessed 11/11/2011.

• Oil Spill Fishing Ban Expanded, Now Covers 45,000+ Square Miles, from 

http://www.oil-rig-spills.com/uncategorized/oil-spill-fishing-ban-exp, undated.

• Fishing banned in Gulf of Mexico for 10 days, The Telegraph, 03 May 2010 7:30 BST, 

accessed 11/11/2011.

• Federal government extends area of fishing ban in Gulf of Mexico, CNN, 18 May 2010.