alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69992-70000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22383]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, 
tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-
622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; 
Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the 
Assistant Director for Compliance, tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (https://ofac.treasury.gov).

Notice of OFAC Actions

    On October 3, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests 
in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are 
blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below:
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 69993]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC23.013


[[Page 69994]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC23.014


[[Page 69995]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC23.015


[[Page 69996]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC23.016


[[Page 69997]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC23.017


[[Page 69998]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC23.018


[[Page 69999]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC23.019



[[Page 70000]]


    Dated: October 3, 2023.
Bradley T. Smith,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2023-22383 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR VACATUR - 1 

2:06-CV-203 RSM 

4368-025811 228104 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

601 Union Street, Suite 3100 

Seattle WA 98101.1374 

TEL 206.623.9900 FAX 206.624.6885

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 

THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington 

Municipal Corporation; THE 

WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE 

AUTHORITY, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY 

(US), a foreign corporation doing business 

in Washington, LEXINGTON INSURANCE 

COMPANY (UK), a foreign corporation 

doing business in Washington, 

 Defendants. 

NO. 2:06-CV-203 RSM 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION FOR VACATUR 

This matter came before the court on the parties’ JOINT MOTION FOR 

VACATUR dated March 6, 2008. Having considered the submission of the parties and 

the court being now fully informed, it is hereby ORDERED: 

1. The parties’ JOINT MOTION FOR VACATUR is GRANTED; 

2. The following order and judgment issued by the court on September 19, 

2007 are hereby vacated: 

• “Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment” Dkt. #108; and 

• “Judgment in a Civil Action” Dkt. #109. 

Case 2:06-cv-00203-RSM Document 123 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR VACATUR - 2 

2:06-CV-203 RSM 

4368-025811 228104 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

601 Union Street, Suite 3100 

Seattle WA 98101.1374 

TEL 206.623.9900 FAX 206.624.6885

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

DONE IN OPEN COURT this _10_ day of _March_ 2008. 

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Presented by: 

STAFFORD FREY COOPER, PC 

By: _______________________________________ 

 A. Richard Dykstra, WSBA #5114 

 Stephanie L. Grassia, WSBA #34907 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

CLAUSEN MILLER, PC 

By: _______________________________________ 

 Ian R. Feldman 

Attorneys for Defendants Pro Hac Vice 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00203-RSM Document 123 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 16-4 Filed 04/04/2006 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 16 Att. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 16-4 Filed 04/04/2006 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIOSPECIFICS TECHNOLOGIES CORP. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JULY 31, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,671,173  
<SECURITIES>                                 2,329,420  
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,359,973  
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0  
<INVENTORY>                                  1,524,820 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,337,499  
<PP&E>                                       3,128,751  
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,117,781  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,045,174  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          719,552  
<BONDS>                                              0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                         4,883  
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,553,221  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,045,174  
<SALES>                                      2,703,545 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,703,545  
<CGS>                                          650,037  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  650,037  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               915,509  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,300  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                525,139  
<INCOME-TAX>                                   139,220  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            375,484  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   375,484  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08  
                                           
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

PETITIONER FOR WRIT OF ERROR

CORAM NOBIS - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

STEVEN BRIAN LONG, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C06-180-TSZ-JPD

) (CR90-81-TSZ)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

) PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

Respondent. ) CORAM NOBIS

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for writ of error coram nobis, the

government’s answer, the Report and Recommendation of Judge James P. Donohue, United States

Magistrate Judge, any objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Petitioner's petition for writ of error coram nobis (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED.

(3) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Case 2:06-cv-00180-TSZ Document 15 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

PETITIONER FOR WRIT OF ERROR

CORAM NOBIS - 2

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to the United States

Attorney, and to Judge Donohue.

DATED this 21st day of December, 2006.

AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00180-TSZ Document 15 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

DETERMINATION AS TO VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE -1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

 AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FORTINO SEGURA-GOMEZ, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR00-51 RSM 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF 

FACT AND DETERMINATION 

AS TO ALLEGED 

VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE

INTRODUCTION 

 I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on March 9, 

2009. The defendant appeared pursuant to a summons issued in this case. The United States was 

represented by Bruce Miyake, and defendant was represented by Ralph Hurvitz. Also present 

was U.S. Probation Officers Kathy Stringer and Armando Melendez. The proceedings were 

digitally recorded. 

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE 

Defendant was sentenced on September 21, 2001 by the Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein for 

Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine; and Distribution of Methamphetamine. He received 

84 months in custody and five years of supervised release. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

DETERMINATION AS TO VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE -2 

PRESENTLY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AND 

DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION OF THE VIOLATION 

In a petition dated November 12, 2008, Supervising U.S. Probation Officer Todd A. Sanders 

alleged that defendant violated the following conditions of supervised release by: 

1. Reentering the United States without permission of the BICE, on or before July 29, 

2008, in violation of the standard condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local 

crime. 

2. Committing the crime of Money Laundering, on or about July 29, 2008, in violation 

of the standard condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime. 

Defendant admitted violation 2 and waived any hearing as to whether it occurred. Based on 

the testimony presented by the government, the Court found defendant violated violation 1. 

Defendant was remanded into custody and informed that his disposition hearing was set for 

March 13, 2009 before District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that defendant has violated the 

conditions of his supervised release as alleged above, and conduct a disposition hearing. 

DATED this 9th day of March, 2009. 

A 

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 

United States Magistrate Judge
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CEDRIC MARVIN JACKSON,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-55-RSM-JPD

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 23, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant has a criminal background history that reflects numerous offenses,

convictions, and failure to comply with conditions of his supervised release.

(2) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will that will reasonably address the risk of flight or danger to the community.

(3) Defendant has stipulated to detention, but reserves the right to contest his

continued detention if there is a change in circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Case 2:06-cr-00055-TSZ Document 9 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00055-TSZ Document 9 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 66078.

#### Pacon Machines Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 60/30176 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Prom a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was, therefore, overruled.
Case No. 8,222.

#### LEIPER et al. v. BICKLEY et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 29.] *1*

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1801.

Practice at Law — Notice to Take Deposition— Service on Attorney — Reasonable Time.

Notice of the time and place of taking a deposition, given to the attorney at law of the op*266posite party, is sufficient; and one hour’s notice, when the party lives in the same village or town, is reasonable notice, unless special circumstances should be Shown to render it unreasonable.

On the trial of this cause a deposition de bene esse was offered by the plaintiffs [Leiper & Co.].

Mr. Faw, for defendants,

objected: (1) That notice was not given to the other party, but to his attorney at law, and that such notice is not good. Buckner, one of the defendants, was a resident of the town of Alexandria, where the deposition was taken, but was out of town at the time, and his house shut up. (2) That the notice was not reasonable, being only one hour before the time of taking the deposition.

But

THE COURT

was of opinion that the notice to the attorney in such cases is good, and that in this case an hour’s notice was sufficient, unless special circumstances should be shown to render it unreasonable.
----

| WELLS FARGO HOME      MORTGAGE Logo |   |   |  Wells      Fargo Home Mortgage |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                                |   |   |  One Home      Campus           |
|                                |   |   |  Des Moines, IA      50328-0001 |

| 1.   | I,      John B. Brown, Senior Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells      Fargo”) hereby state that a review of the activities of Wells Fargo during      the calendar year of 2008 and of Wells Fargo’s performance under the      servicing agreement(s) listed on the attached Exhibit A (the “Servicing      Agreement(s)”) has been made under my  supervision. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | To      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled      all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material      respects throughout 2008. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |  Wells Fargo Home      Mortgage               |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |  is a division      of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |

----

----

|  CLIENT    |  INV# |  INV                  |  MASTER      SERVICER/TRUSTEE |  DEAL      NAME |
|-----------------|------------|----------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------------|
|  708  |  H78  |  BANK OF      AMERICA |  LASALLE                      |  BAFC2008-01*C  |
|  106  |  S18  |  BANK OF      AMERICA |  LASALLE                      |  BAFC2008-01*P  |
|  106  |  Y82  |  EMC                  |  LASALLE                      |  BSABS2006-HE3  |
|  106  |  Z43  |  EMC                  |  LASALLE                      |  BSABS2006-HE4  |

----
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 1, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Updated List of Potential Small Businesses in the Light-duty Vehicle Market

FROM: Chris Lieske, Environmental Engineer

Assessment and Standards Division

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

As with the model year (MY) 2012-2016 greenhouse gas (GHG) standards, EPA is exempting

companies meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size definition of a small business 

from the MY 2017-2025 GHG standards. This memo provides a list of the 24 companies 

currently in the U.S. market that appear to fit the SBA company size criteria, which for vehicle 

manufacturers is 1,000 employees. The companies fall into three categories; small 

manufacturers, independent commercial importers, and alternative fuel converters. This list is 

EPA’s current best estimate of companies that might qualify, but should not be viewed as a final 

determination of eligibility for the exemption. Also, the list of qualifying companies may change 

over time as company circumstances change and entities enter or leave the market. 

Vehicle Manufacturers

Vehicle Production Group

Azure Dynamics

Wheego Electric Cars

Fisker Automotive 

Mosler Automotive

Independent Commercial Importers (see attachment)

US SPECS, LLC

Wallace Environmental Test Laboratories

JK Technologies, LLC

Northern California Diagnostics Laboratories, Inc.

Auto Boutique Ltd.

US Drive Right

G & K Automotive Conversions, Inc.

Right Hand Drive Japan
Alternative Fuel Converters

Altech-Eco Corporation

American Alternative Fuel

BAF Technologies

Baytech Corporation

Flex Fuel U.S.

High Pressure Group LLC

NGV Motori, USA, LLC

PARNELL USA, INC

The CNG Store, LLC; dba Auto Gas America

RGR Alternative Fuels

AMP Electric Vehicles
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

BERNARD OTIS HUFF,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5105RJB

 ORDER DIRECTING

SERVICE AND RETURN,

§ 2254 PETITION

The petitioner in this action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.

§§ 636 (b) (1) (A) and 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Magistrates’ Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4.

(1). The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent, a copy of the

petition, of all documents in support thereof, and of this Order. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble the necessary documents to effect service. 

The Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Order, and the General Order. The clerk will also send

a courtesy copy of the petition to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office Criminal Justice

Division. 

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent shall file and serve an

 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District

Case 3:06-cv-05105-RJB Document 6 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 2

Courts. As part of such answer, respondents should state whether petitioner has exhausted available

state remedies, whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse

or delay under Rule 9. Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without

first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent shall file the answer with the

Clerk of Court and serve a copy of the answer upon petitioner.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon

 receipt of the Answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the

answer is filed, petitioner may file and serve a response not later than on the Monday immediately

preceding the Friday appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent may file and serve a

reply brief not later than on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for

consideration of the matter.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05105-RJB Document 6 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 19, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00302

- CV

Jeffrey Flynt , Appellant

v.

Legacy , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMIS SED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on April 1 9, 2024

. Jeffre y Flyn t has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion , the Court agrees that the

motion should be granted . Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismiss es the appeal

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.