alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeWanted: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Mario Alberto Jimenez Castro

# 									Mario Alberto Jimenez Castro							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted

April 14, 2023

U.S. Actions Targeting Transnational Criminals for Illicit Fentanyl Activity – United States Department of State

Mario Alberto Jimenez Castro is a money launderer for the Sinaloa Cartel who is responsible for facilitating the movement of fentanyl proceeds from the U.S. to Mexico through various means.  In the case of Mario Alberto Jimenez Castro, a/k/a “Kastor,” he and a co-conspirator operate a U.S.-based money laundering organization that uses cryptocurrency to launder Cartel drug money to Mexico from the U.S., including from New York City, Boston, Denver, Nashville, Omaha, and Salt Lake City.  Since at least Approximately August 2022, Jimenez Castro, who with his co-conspirator report directly to a deputy of Ivan Archivaldo Guzman Salazar, has directed individuals to pick up money from various traffickers in the U.S., and to then deposit that cash into various cryptocurrency wallets controlled by other high-level members of the organization.

Between Approximately August 2022 and February 2023, U.S.-based couriers, acting at the direction of Jimenez Castro and his co-conspirator, retrieved more than $869,000 in narcotics proceeds which was then laundered via cryptocurrency for the Cartel.

On April 4, 2023, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment against Mario Alberto Jimenez Castro and others charging them with engaging in a Fentanyl Importation Conspiracy, Fentanyl Trafficking Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns & Destructive Devices, Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns & Destructive Devices, and Money Laundering Conspiracy.

The U.S. Department of State is offering a **REWARD OF UP TO $1 MILLION** for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Mario Alberto Jimenez Castro.

If you have information, please contact the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration via email at ChapitosTips@dea.gov.  If you are located outside of the U.S., you may also visit the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.  If in the U.S., you can contact the local DEA office in your city.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsDrug TraffickingMexico

Back to Top
#### § 456.231 Continued stay review required.

The UR plan must provide for a review of each beneficiary's continued stay in the mental hospital to decide whether it is needed, in accordance with the requirements of §§ 456.232 through 456.238.
### Updates on Veolia Permitting Action Andrea Morgan to: Kathy Andria, Amy Funk , Verena Owen,

David Bender, Samantha Ballard, Kat Logan Smith 12/17/2012 04:56 PM
Cc: David Ogulei, Genevieve Damico, Jane Woolums Everyone, I hope the season is finding you well. We wanted to provide you all with a few updates on the permitting action pertaining to Veolia Environmental Services. Veolia has withdrawn their application to modify their Title V permit. EPA plans to continue to reopen Veolia's Title V permit under 40 C.F.R. § 71.7(f) to incorporate feedrate limits. We expect to public notice the draft permit in early 2013 and will notify you all by email when the comment period begins . Thank you,

Andrea Morgan Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division Phone: (312) 353-6058 | Fax: (312) 692-2920
- Home
- Cases Filed Against the Kingdom of Morocco

HomeInternational Claims and Investment Disputes...U.S.-Morocco FTA Investor-State Arbitrations

# 									U.S.-Morocco FTA Investor-State Arbitrations							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes

		L/CID ARCHIVE		

Chapter Ten of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (U.S.-Morocco FTA) contains provisions designed to protect foreign investors and their investments and to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes.  For example, each State Party must accord investors from the other Party national (i.e., non-discriminatory) treatment and may not expropriate investments of those investors in violation of international law.  Chapter Ten permits an investor of one Party to make a legal claim for money damages for measures taken by the other Party that allegedly violate the provisions of Chapter Ten.  An investor may initiate arbitration against that Party under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules or, as applicable, the ICSID Convention or ICSID Additional Facility Rules.

The following links provide general background on the U.S.-Morocco FTA, the relevant arbitral rules, and investment disputes:
        - U.S. Department of State,  **Office of Investment Affairs**
        - U.S. Trade Representative,  **U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement**
        - **International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)******
        - **United Nations Commission on International Trade Law******

The Department of State is the lead agency representing the U.S. government in U.S.-Morocco Chapter Ten cases.  The State Department works closely with other agencies to develop U.S. government positions in these cases.

The links at the top connect to pages describing any cases against a State Party and contain pleadings and certain other documents that are publicly available under the rules and confidentiality agreements applicable in each case.

For more information, contact:

Office of International Claims and Investment DisputesInvestment ArbitrationSuite 203, South Building2430 E Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20037tel: 202-776-8360fax 202-776-8388

Notices and other documents in disputes under Section B of the U.S.-Morocco FTA shall be served on the United States by delivery to:

Executive Director (L/EX)Office of the Legal AdviserDepartment of StateWashington, DC 20520

Tags

ArbitrationFree Trade AgreementsLegal AdviserMorocco

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Larry Joe PHILLIPS v. Charles FOTI, Sheriff.

No. 63740.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 26, 1979.

In re Larry Joe Phillips applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
#### Oscar B. Thomas, Appellant, *v.*Casper Wittman, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, in the Municipal Court, first district, borough of Manhattan. ' .....

O. B. Thomas, for appellant.

Charles W. Zaring, for respondent.

Freedaiae, P. J.

This action was brought to recover certain sums of money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant, which were used as margins in the purchase of stocks and grain, and the only question in the case is, whether the plaintiff was informed at the time he placed the money with defendant, that the defendant was a member of the stock exchanges of this city, and purchased stocks and grain in his own name, or whether he transacted business through the firm of E. D. *Fox &*Co., who subsequently failed, and through whose failure the margins were lost. The only direct testimony given upon the question was that of the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively, and their testimony was directly and emphatically'in conflict. Two other witnesses were sworn, neither of whose testimony had any direct bearing upon the question at issue. Several exhibits were also introduced for the purpose of corroborating the respective parties, but the most that can be said of their value as evidence is that the court might reasonably have drawn inferences from them in support of the testimony of either party.

*816The case comes within the well-known and oft-repeated rule, laid down by appellate courts, that a judgment of an inferior court will not be disturbed upon a question of fact upon which testimony has been given upon both sides, unless it appears that there has been bias, prejudice or partiality, or that it is clearly against the weight of evidence.

Nothing of that kind appearing in this case, the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. ,

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 433.122 Reapproval of a disapproved system. When FFP has been reduced under § 433.120(a), and CMS determines upon subsequent review that the system meets all current performance standards, system requirements and other conditions of reapproval, the following provisions apply: ( a ) CMS will resume FFP in expenditures for system operations at the 75 percent level beginning with the quarter following the review determination that the system again meets conditions of reapproval.
( b ) CMS may retroactively waive a reduction of FFP in expenditures for system operations if CMS determines that the waiver could improve the administration of the State Medicaid plan. However, CMS cannot waive this reduction for any quarter before the fourth quarter immediately preceding the quarter in which CMS issues the determination (as part of the review process) stating that the system is reapproved.
[54 FR 41974, Oct. 13, 1989]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Universal American
Financial Corp. (the "Registrant") for the year ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Richard A. Barasch, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and
Robert A. Waegelein, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) 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
Company.

Date:  March 16, 2005                   /s/ Richard A. Barasch
                                        ----------------------
                                        Richard A. Barasch
                                        Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 16, 2005                   /s/ Robert A. Waegelein
                                        -----------------------
                                        Robert A. Waegelein
                                        Chief Financial Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided
to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

      This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                        <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<CASH>                                          16,494
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,529
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     90,608
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        215,286
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,775
<DEPOSITS>                                     301,891
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,918
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 343,775
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,321
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,484
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   808
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                23,613
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,958
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,958
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,655
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,728
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,728
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,569
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.63
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,430
<LOANS-PAST>                                       415
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   108
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,030
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,530
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      531
<RECOVERIES>                                       256
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,155
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,421
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,734


</TABLE>
## 2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-7-2007 

# Ar nold v . C omm of P

A T r a ns p
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-5037

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Ar no ld v . C omm of P

A T r a n sp " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1393. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1393

## 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT March 2, 2007

Nos. 05-5037 & 05-5227

AUGUST W. ARNOLD

v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al Michael Baker Corporation, Appellant in 05-5037 Tribune Review Publishing Company, Intervenor/Appellant in 05-5227 ( D. C. No.03-cv-638 ) PRESENT: SMITH, ROTH, Circuit Judges and YOHN*, District Judge Letter Motion by Tribune Review Publishing, Intervenor/Appellant in No. 05-5227 to Motion to Amend the Opinion.
Carolyn Hicks, Case Manager 267-299-4926 Answer due 3/12/07. *Hon. William H. Yohn Jr., United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvanina. O R D E R The foregoing Letter Motion by Tribune Review Publishing, Intervenor/Appellant in No. 05-5227 to Motion to Amend the Opinion is GRANTED. Because the names of counsel were inadvertently switched, it is further ORDERED that the Opinion filed February 20, 2007 shall be AMENDED as follows: The designation of counsel for the parties shall be amended as follows: Counsel for Appellant/Cross Appellee is : 

## Kim M. Watterson (Argued) Efrem M. Grail Joseph F. Rodkey, Jr. Reed Smith LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219

## 2 Counsel for Appellee/Cross Appellant is: Ronald D. Barber (Argued) H. Yale Gutnick Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Potter, P.C. Four Gateway Center, Suite 2200 444 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222

By the Court,

/s/ D. Brooks Smith Circuit Judge Dated: March 7, 2006 CH/cc: Ronald D. Barber, Esq. Efrem M. Grail, Esq. Kim M. Watterson, Esq.
§ 456.144 Data sources for studies. Data that the committee uses to perform studies must be obtained from one or more of the following sources: ( a ) Medical records or other appropriate hospital data;
( b ) External organizations that compile statistics, design profiles, and produce other comparative data;
( c ) Cooperative endeavors with— ( 1 ) QIOs;
( 2 ) Fiscal agents;
( 3 ) Other service providers; or
( 4 ) Other appropriate agencies.
[43 FR 45266, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 51 FR 43198, Dec. 1, 1986]
#### ANNA ROLLER SCHUCHMANN *v.*CITY OF MILFORD ET AL.

*Matthew B. Woods*and *Cynthia C.*Anger, in support of the petition.

*John F.*Fallon, in opposition.

Decided April 10, 1997

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 351 (AC 15275), is denied.
1^

C\«MtoM Id

tt»

CM

_Jh-»-

ii.;

aw ou. ne,-tKs.

co

UJ
•x

CVI

£3
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEconomic evaluation of flying-qualities design criteria for a transport configured with relaxed static stabilityDirect constrained parameter optimization was used to optimally size a medium range transport for minimum direct operating cost. Several stability and control constraints were varied to study the sensitivity of the configuration to specifying the unaugmented flying qualities of transports designed to take maximum advantage of relaxed static stability augmentation systems. Additionally, a number of handling qualities related design constants were studied with respect to their impact on the design.Document ID19810005457Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsSliwa, S. M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1980Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1760L-13944Accession Number81N13968Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-34-33-05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810005457.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Option Exercise Extension Agreement between the Registrant and Glenn Reinus



 Exhibit 10.43 
 OPTION EXERCISE EXTENSION AGREEMENT 
 This Agreement is made and entered into effective as of
December 10, 2008 by and between Rackspace Hosting, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Glenn Reinus, an Optionee of the Company (the “Optionee”). 
 WHEREAS, Optionee has given notice of his retirement from the Company as Senior Vice President, Worldwide Sales effective as of 11:59 p.m. on
December 31, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, as of December 31, 2008 Optionee will be the holder of 1,510,083 vested stock options (the
“1,510,083 Vested Options”) which were issued under stock option agreements dated February 25, 2003 and December 31, 2005, respectively; and 
 WHEREAS the Company’s Compensation Committee (the “Committee”), appointed to administer the plans under which the 1,510,083 Vested Options were granted, has determined that it would be to the advantage
and in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to grant to Optionee an extension of the right to exercise the 1,510,083 Vested Options as consideration for increased efforts during the Optionee’s term of office with the Company.

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Optionee agree as follows: 
 Rackspace agrees that Optionee will have the right to retain the 1,510,083 Vested Options issued pursuant to the Macro Holding, Inc. stock option
agreements dated February 25, 2003 and December 31, 2005, respectively, and Optionee will have the right to exercise the 1,510,083 Vested Options in accordance with said stock option agreements until December 31, 2009, and
Optionee’s right to exercise said 1,510,083 Vested Options shall not terminate as a result of him not being a Service Provider until December 31, 2009. All other non-vested options issued to Optionee under the December 31, 2005 Macro
Holding, Inc. Stock Option Agreement and the March 2008 Rackspace, Inc. Stock Option Agreement shall terminate as of the date hereof. The February 25, 2003 and December 31, 2005 stock option agreements are hereby amended to incorporate the
foregoing agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto. 
  

			
	RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Alan Schoenbaum
		 	Alan Schoenbaum
		 	Senior Vice President and General Counsel


  

	
	/s/ Glenn Reinus
	Glenn Reinus
# C_2005296EN.01002502.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/25

---

Action brought on 12 July 2005 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM

(Case T-257/05)

(2005/C 296/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Gaedertz, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

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

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

| — | The applicant claims that the Court should: |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 2 May 2005 in appeal proceedings R 0620/2004-2; re-establish the applicant's rights (restitutio in integrum) in accordance with Article 78 of the Community trade mark regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 2 May 2005 in appeal proceedings R 0620/2004-2; re-establish the applicant's rights (restitutio in integrum) in accordance with Article 78 of the Community trade mark regulation.

restitutio in integrum

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark sought: The word mark ‘t’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 41 — Registration No 2 893 865.

Community trade mark sought:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register.

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the application to re-establish the applicant's rights and dismissal of its appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The refusal to re-establish the applicant's rights in the appeal proceedings is unlawful since it is incorrect that the office organisation of the applicant's lawyers does not satisfy the requirements of Article 78(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---