alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeWanted: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Pedro Luis Martin-Olivares – New Target

# 									Pedro Luis Martin-Olivares – New Target							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

September 29, 2020

Pedro Luis Martin-Olivares Reward Poster (Accessible – English) [220 KB]Pedro Luis Martin-Olivares Reward Poster (English) [438 KB]Pedro Luis Martin-Olivares Reward Poster (Spanish) [632 KB]

****

**NAME:** Pedro Luis Martin-Olivares**ALIASES:** Martin Olivares**DOB:** April 18, 1967**POB:** Venezuela**NATIONALITY:** Venezuelan**CITIZENSHIP:** Venezuelan**HEIGHT:** 5’5”**WEIGHT:** 250 lbs**HAIR COLOR:** Grey**EYE COLOR:** Brown

Pedro Luis Martin-Olivares is the former Chief of Economic Intelligence of Servicio Bolivariano deIntelligencia Nacional (SEBIN- Bolivarian Intelligence Service) in Venezuela.

As the Chief of Economic Intelligence, Martin-Olivares conspired with numerous drug traffickers,including current State Department NRP designated target Hugo Armando Carvajal-Barrios andconvicted Colombian drug trafficker Roberto Mendez-Hurtado. Martin-Olivares used his influence andhis governmental position to allow narcotic shipments to leave Venezuela to destinations in CentralAmerica, the Caribbean, and the United States.

In 2015, based in part on information developed during the course of the DEA investigation of Martin-Olivares, President Obama and the Treasury Department imposed economic sanctions on Venezuela.Since that time, the Treasury Department has sanctioned more than 91 Venezuelan officials, includingMartin-Olivares. There is currently an Interpol Red Notice for Martin-Olivares.

On April 24, 2015, Martin-Olivares was indicted in the Southern District of Florida for distribution ofmore than five kilograms of cocaine, knowing that such controlled substance would be unlawfullyimported into the United States, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 959(a)(2); possession withintent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine on board an aircraft registered in the UnitedStates, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Sections 959(b)(2); and Title 21, Section 963, conspiracy toimport more than five kilograms of cocaine.

The U.S. Department of State is offering a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to thearrest and/or conviction of Pedro Luis Martin-Olivares for participating in international narcoticstrafficking.

If you have information and are located outside of the United States, please contact the nearest U.S.Embassy or Consulate. If in the United States, please contact the local DEA office in your city.Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.****TIPS:  CONTACT DEA AT 1-202-681-8187** (PHONE/WHATSAPP/SIGNAL) OR BY EMAIL ATCartelSolesTips@usdoj.gov.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsDrug TraffickingNarcoticsRewards for JusticeVenezuela

Back to Top
CITY COURT OF NEW YORK, GENERAL TERM,

MAY, 1899.

#### Simon A. Bernheimer et al., Respondents, *v.*Adolf Prince, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

Myers, Goldsmith *&*Bronner (Emanuel J. Myers, of counsel), for appellant.

Eose & Putzel (Gibson Putzel and Benjamin G. Paskusz, of counsel), for respondents.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J.

The evidence clearly shows that the defendant, prior to the assignment of the chattel mortgage in question, had both actual and constructive knowledge of the fact that, by inadvertence, the chattels replevied herein were included in said mortgage, and that by an agreement made subsequently to the execution and delivery of said mortgage it was agreed in writing between the mortgagor and mortgagee that such was the fact and accordingly that the said chattels should not be included in said mortgage. Such written agreement was duly filed. ■ Thus constructive notice of the facts therein recited was given defendant; *832actual notice was also given him of said mistakes. Thus' it appears that prior to the assignment to defendant he had full knowledge of the fact that his assignor had no right or title to the replevied goods and that they were not covered by the mortgage. How then can we have an interest in them? The jury in deciding against him were compelled to do so by force of the evidence submitted to .them.

' O’Dwvter and Scotchman, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 41.10 Correspondence addresses.

Except as the Board may otherwise direct,

(a) *Appeals.* Correspondence in an application or a patent involved in an appeal (subparts B and C of this part) during the period beginning when an appeal docketing notice is issued and ending when a decision has been rendered by the Board, as well as any request for rehearing of a decision by the Board, shall be mailed to: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. Notices of appeal, appeal briefs, reply briefs, requests for oral hearing, as well as all other correspondence in an application or a patent involved in an appeal to the Board for which an address is not otherwise specified, should be addressed as set out in § 1.1(a)(1)(i) of this title.

(b) *Interferences.* Mailed correspondence in interference (subpart D of this part) shall be sent to Mail Stop INTERFERENCE, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

(c) *Trial Proceedings.* Correspondence in trial proceedings (part 42 of this title) are governed by § 42.6(b) of this title.

[77 FR 46630, Aug. 6, 2012]
November 1, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GENARO TAMAYO, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00141-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William R. Flatt,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

|  | /s/ William R. Flatt    |
|--|-------------------------|
|  | William R. Flatt (*)    |
|  | Chief Financial Officer |
|  | May 10, 2006            |

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Parkway Properties,Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 

### Study Report

Title: Porosity of Test Substance Films (Fabrics) by Scanning Electron

Microscopy – Summary of Data



### Report Date: October 30, 2014



### File Reference:

Principal Investigator(s): {



### Sponsor: {



### EPA Reference: TS -ZF02NT2 

### Study Report

Porosity of Test Substance Films (Fabrics) by Scanning Electron Microscopy

– Summary of Data

1) Introduction:
In connection with product research and development activities, the Sponsor has characterized the porosity of non-woven films of the TS-ZF02NT Test Substance formed by depositing aqueous suspensions of the Test Substance (“Solution”) onto a substrate using spin-coat techniques. This study reports on the porosity of several Test Substance films, with example analysis and resultant pore size distribution.



### 2) Purpose & Scope:
This study provides porosity characterization of the Test Substance after deposition onto a substrate as a non-woven film from a Solution by spin-coat techniques. This summary is to be used to inform chemical identification processes, { }



### 3) Administrative Organization: This report was prepared by the principal investigator, { } . T he underlying analyses were performed at }

.



### 4) Test Substance:
The underlying measurements were conducted on films of the TS -ZF02NT new chemical substance (“Test Substance”), after processing into a Solution (as described in TS -ZF02NT ), and deposition from the Solution onto a 200 mm titanium nitride-coated wafer by spin-coat techniques. Films of the Test Substance represent a normal end use of the Test Substance.



### 5) Principle and Study Design: The Test Substance porosity was qualitatively determined through image processing of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs using available ImageJ software. Collected images are processed by the ImageJ software to identify and select the void spaces. These are then measured in the first few layers of the nonwoven fabric.



### 6) Sample Handling and Preparation: Non-woven Test Substance film samples are prepared in accordance with the Sponsor’s specification for 200 mm wafer spin coating, { } Images were collected as described in the sponsor’s standard operating procedure, { . }

.



### 7) Study Results:
SEM micrographs like that shown in the top left of Figure 1 was examined to determine the size and frequency of void (holes) in deposited fabrics. Here, the voids appear as small dark regions that are easily distinguishable from the rest of the fabric. To count and measure these

voids , a macro ( Appendix III ) was written that determined the mean grayscale pixel value as3

well as the standard deviation (σ). Void regions were selected by thresholding and selecting regions with grayscale pixel values less than 2σ (see histogram in Figure 1). Thresholded results are shown in the bottom SEM micrograph of Figure 1.45 * * * *I-1 Appendix II

Standard Operating Procedure { }I-2 }I-3

}I-4II -1 

## Appendix II:

Standard Operating Procedure {

}II -2 }II -3

4.0II -4II -5
August 5 , 201 6

Memorandum to Docket ID # EPA

- R08

- OAR

- 201 3

- 0145

Subject: Communication with State of North Dakota regarding error in SIP submittal From: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Environmental Protection Specialist Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

On July 29, 2016, EPA and the State of North Dakota discussed a n error found in the state’s January 2013 state implementation plan (SIP) submittal. EPA noted that the reference to 40 CFR 52.21(k)(1) in North Dakota’s state regulations found at 33

- 15

- 15

- 01.2 should read 40 CFR 52.21(k)(1)(i) instead of 40 CFR 52.21(k)(1).

On August 1, 2016, the state acknowledged the error and committed to revising it in the next rule revision.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Shelter Properties VI (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, 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; and



(2)

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





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 8, 2007 
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 8, 2007 





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

Ms. Sheila C. Holman, Director 

Division of Air Quality 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 

1641 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 

Dear Ms. Holman: 

.NOV 15 2012 

On November 9, 2012, we received revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan submitted 

by your agency on November 2, 2012. That revision pertains to the 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure 

requirements as required by sections l lO(a)(l) and (2) of the Clean Air Act. We have determined that all 

of the required administrative and technical components are present, and are currently conducting the 

technical review prior to preparing a rulemaking notice. This review will be completed as expeditiously 

as possible. 

Lynorae Benjamin in the Air Planning Branch of the Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division 

is the principal contact for this rulemaking. If you have any questions please contact her at (404) 562-

9040. 

Sincerely, 

-ihv-Beverly H. Banister 

Director 

Air, Pesticides, and Toxics 

Management Division 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable •Printed wtth Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

I, Anthony Sfarra,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the BANK2020-BNK28 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of thereports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliancewith servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

KeyBank NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogicSolutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, Computershare Trust Company,National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as ServicingFunction Participant for the Custodian, KeyBank National Association, asSpecial Servicer for the 711 Fifth Avenue Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee for the 711 Fifth Avenue Mortgage Loan, ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor for the 711 Fifth AvenueMortgage Loan, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant forthe 711 Fifth Avenue Mortgage Loan, and Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation, as Servicing Function Participant for the Custodian for the 711Fifth Avenue Mortgage Loan.

 

 

Dated: March 13,2024

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

Anthony Sfarra

President

(senior officer incharge of securitization of the depositor)
#### The People ex rel. Robert McDonald, Relator, *v.*Francis J. Lantry, Commissioner of Correction of the city of New York, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

April, 1899.)

Civil Service Law—Laches in moving for reinstatement — Insufficient excuse for delay.

A keeper in the department of correction in the city of New York, in the competitive class, who, after having been summarily removed on March 31, 1898, delays taking proceedings for his Reinstatement for more than four months thereafter, can obtain no relief; and his . explanation, that the delay. was caused by a difference of opinion as , to whether chapter 186 of the Laws of 1898 applied to the city of New York, must be deemed insufficient where it appears that for more than six weeks before he commenced, his proceedings the weight of judicial authority was against him;

Motion for a writ of mandamus.

Stickney, Spencer *&*Ordway (Samuel H. Ordway, of counsel), for relator.

John Whalen, corporation counsel (Theodore Connoly,. of counsel), for respondent.

Giegerich, J.

The relator was removed from his position as. keeper in the department of correction of the city of New York without a hearing, to which, in view of the regulations of the Municipal Civil Service Commissioners classifying such position as subject to competitive examination, he was entitled under Chapter 186 of the Laws of 1898, amending the General' Civil Service Law (Laws of 1883, chap. 354), an enactment which has lately been held to apply to the city óf New York in the case of People ex rel. Fleming v. Dalton, 158 N. Y. 175, Advancé Sheets of Combined Official Series, No. 305. His removal took place on the 31st day of March, 1898, and this proceeding for reinstatement by mandamus was commenced on the 18th day of August, 1898, more than four months after the date of the removal. Assimilat*161ing to proceedings of this nature the statutory provision limiting the time within which an application for a writ of certiorari may be made, the courts have held that a delay of four months is fatal, unless satisfactorily explained. People ex rel. Miller v. Justices, 78 Hun, 334; People ex rel. Young v. Collis, 6 App. Div. 467; Matter of McDonald, 34 id. 512. The explanation given by the relator is that, owing to the difference of opinion as to whether the law of 1898, referred to, applied to this City, he awaited some final judicial utterance upon the subject, but as a matter of fact, the weight of authority when he commenced his proceeding was against him, the Appellate Division of this Department having-held that the act in question did not apply (People ex rel. Leet v. Keller, 31 App. Div. 248), and the Special Term of Kings County having held that it did, in People ex rel. Fleming v. Dalton, 24 Misc. Rep. 88. This condition of authority existed for more than six weeks before the commencement of the proceeding, which was not based upon any new developments as to the relator’s rights, and, therefore, no reason is apparent from this state of facts, for the failure to bring such proceeding within four months, in accordance with the rule stated.

Application denied, with $10 costs.
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

17) IV-E-5 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:26 AM Sheet 17 of 105 
P.2 

A-83-27 

IV-E-5 

CONTACT REPORT 

Date OCT- £ g / ?/PG originator /^RCTTf 

CONTACT BY: TELEPHONE^ MEETING • Other 

NAME, TITLE & ORGANIZATION WAY/v ^ £• LefUi ' 

flsStSr/|/v/T £fc€"cuTW<f "fc/fccCToft. 

/4ssoe(Ar\uW Or fWlK/t l P<-A^V A^MU/.iliZfr-JU^S 

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER Of- C0 u-CX^S /***?> U M *?*.*< n f c 

/<WC I W Sr 

PURPOSE OR SUBJECT (Give project number if appropriate) 

GROWTH 7UMtb \rJ X^STlT^TJO.Ai/VC SfTc/f/tA QA/ett/lTDfcJ 

SUMMARY 

AU. Lefal wi-Ai OA/ML6 T& passive ^.^ev/iA/r M M /ffoar 

ACTION to 

s 

Distribution:
HomeRemarks and Releases – Global Engagement Center...Report: RT and Sputnik’s Role in Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem

# 									Report: RT and Sputnik’s Role in Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem							

Other Release

January 20, 2022

						Download the Report												[3 MB]

Russian state-funded and state-directed media outlets RT and Sputnik are critical elements in Russia’s disinformation and propaganda ecosystem. In an August 2020 report, the Global Engagement Center outlined the five pillars of Russia’s disinformation and propaganda ecosystem. RT and Sputnik are key state-funded and directed global messengers within this ecosystem, using the guise of conventional international media outlets to provide disinformation and propaganda support for the Kremlin’s foreign policy objectives. RT and Sputnik also interact with other pillars of the ecosystem by amplifying content from Kremlin and Kremlin-aligned proxy sites (some of which are connected to Russian intelligence), weaponizing social media, and promoting cyber-enabled disinformation.

RT and Sputnik’s role as disinformation and propaganda outlets is most obvious when they report on issues of political importance to the Kremlin. A prevalent example is Russia’s use of RT and Sputnik to attempt to change public opinions about Ukraine in Europe, the United States, and as far away as Latin America. When factual reporting on major foreign policy priorities is not favorable, Russia uses state-funded international media outlets to inject pro-Kremlin disinformation and propaganda into the information environment.

#### Download the Report

Kremlin-Funded Media: RT and Sputnik’s Role in Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem [4 MB]

The report is also available in Arabic, Chinese, **French, Portuguese,****Russian**, and **Spanish**.

Tags

DisinformationGlobal Engagement CenterRussia

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top