alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey - 001 

James Larkin - 002 

Scott Spear - 003 

John Brunst - 004 

Dan Hyer - 005 

Andrew Padilla - 006 

Joye Vaught - 007, 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-SMB 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the United States’ Ex Parte Motion to Defer Disclosure 

of Carl Ferrer’s Jencks Act Statements (Doc. 471). The Court has also read Defendant John 

Brunst’s Opposition to Government’s Motion to Defer Disclosure of Carl Ferrer’s 

Statements and Objections to In Camera filing of the Same, and Request for Disclosure of 

The Same. The United States’ motion was filed ex parte and under seal but Defendant John 

Brunst’s counsel was given notice of the motion in error. For that reason, the courts ruling 

will not be filed under seal but will be intentionally vague. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 535 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 For good cause shown in the motion, IT IS ORDERED granting the United States’ 

Ex Parte Motion to Defer Disclosure of Carl Ferrer’s Jencks Act Statements ( Doc. 471) 

and setting the deadline for disclosure at June 25, 2019. 

 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2019. 

 

 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 535 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

PETER HENDRICKSON 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Criminal No. 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS-1 

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE

 The parties, through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate that sentencing in this 

matter shall be continued to permit the submission of objections/comments to the Presentence 

Investigation Report, as well as to supplement Defendant’s previously filed Post-Verdict 

Motions. 

/s/ Mark F. Daly__________________________

United States Department of Justice, Tax Division 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

P.O. Box 972 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Tele: (202) 514-5150 

mark.f.daly@usdoj.gov

/s/ Michael C. Leibson_________________

United States Attorneys Office 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

211 W. Front Street #2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Tele: (313) 226-9615 

Michael.leibson@usdoj.gov

/s/ Mark E. Cedrone________________

Cedrone & Pinto, P.C. 

123 South Broad Street 

Suite 810 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

Tele: (215) 925-2500 

mec@cedronepinto.com

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 86 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

PETER HENDRICKSON 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Criminal No. 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS-1 

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

The Defendant, Peter Hendrickson, having requested that sentencing in this matter be 

continued to permit the submission of objections/comments to the Presentence Investigation 

Report, as well as to supplement Defendant’s previously filed Post-Verdict Motions, and 

Attorneys for the parties having submitted a Stipulation regarding the above, accordingly it is: 

ORDERED that the Defendant must submit objections/comments to the Revised 

Presentence Investigation Report on or before February 10, 2010. 

 ORDERED that the Defendant must supplement his previously filed Post-Verdict 

Motions on or before February 26, 2010. 

ORDERD that the Government should file any response/objection to Defendant’s 

Supplemental Post-Verdict Motions on or before March 12, 2010. 

 It is further ORDERED that sentencing is CONTINUED from February 9, 2010 to 

April 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM. 

 

 s/Gerald E. Rosen 

 Gerald E. Rosen 

 Chief Judge, United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Dated: January 14, 2010 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 86 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Overton Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

RICHARD DWIGHT HITE, JR. MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2268-95-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON OCTOBER 15, 1996 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG AND COUNTY OF JAMES CITY Russell M. Carneal, Judge Designate Jon M. Babineau for appellant. John K. Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Richard Dwight Hite, a juvenile, appeals his convictions of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a robbery. Hite takes issue primarily with the transfer procedure from the

Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court to the Circuit Court. Hite argues that the circuit court judge did not review the documents sent up from the lower court to ensure that they were properly completed. As support for his argument, he offers a typographical error on one transfer order. This contention has no merit. The record contains no evidence that the judge did not review the documents. We cannot reach that conclusion upon the bare assertion by the defendant. Furthermore, Code § 16.1-269.6(B)(i) only requires the judge to examine the

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - transfer documents if either the juvenile or the Commonwealth appeals the transfer. Neither occurred in this case. Hite next argues that the typographical error itself and the

failure of the circuit court to advise the Commonwealth to seek indictments prohibited the circuit court from assuming jurisdiction. These objections were not raised before the arraignment, however, and are waived. Code § 16.1-169.6(E). We find no reversible error present in the trial at the circuit court, and we therefore affirm the convictions.

Affirmed.
H. Res. 956 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 9, 2009. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 4173) to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal 

understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-thecounter derivatives markets, and for other purposes. The first 

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 

this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House 

and in the Committee of the Whole. General debate shall be 

confined to the bill, as amended, and shall not exceed three 

hours, with two hours equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
2 

•HRES 956 EH 

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. After general debate, the Committee 

of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4173 pursuant to 

this resolution, the Chair of the Committee of the Whole may 

entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by 

the chair of the Committee on Financial Services or his designee. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6072

TERRY FITZGERALD ZIMMERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. V. TURLINGTON; R. FUTRELL; M. HUDSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-867)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Fitzgerald Zimmerman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Zimmerman v. Turlington, No. CA-95-867 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 10/2018)

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

9 APPEAL 9 CRIMINAL

9 NON-APPEAL 9 CIVIL

9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

9 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER (Specify)

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

9TESTIMONY (Specify)

9PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

9OTHER (Specify)

9VOIR DIRE

9OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

9OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

9OPINION OF COURT

9JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9SENTENCING

9BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS 9 9

PAPER COPY

PDF (e-mail)

ASCII (e-mail)

14 DAYS 9 9

7 DAYS(expedited) 9 9

DAILY

9 9

HOURLY

9 9

REALTIME

9 9

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

3 DAYS

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.) By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1112 Filed 01/12/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Brigid E. PUTNAM, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 66793.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 18, 1995.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Timothy F. Devereux, Clayton, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue appeals from an order of the trial court setting aside the suspension of Petitioner’s driving privileges. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 17, 2009

l0610 

# Order

June 17, 2009

138192

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138192 COA: 289184 Wayne CC: 07-010239-FH WILLIAM TERRELL STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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

DAVID EISENBERG

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.

3550 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Arizona State Bar No. 017218

Telephone: 602.237.5076

Email: david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Andrew Padilla,

Defendant.

CR 18-00422-06-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S MOTION

FOR COUNSEL TO APPEAR BY

TELEPHONE

(Hearing Set For

May 22, 2023, 11:00 am)

Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the

Defendant’s motion to allow his attorney to appear by telephone at the hearing set for May 22,

2023 at 11:00 a.m. in the matter of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment

(Doc. 1557). 

The basis for this request is that several months ago counsel and his family arranged and

paid for travel to the east coast of the United States, which includes the date set for the above

hearing. 

Accordingly, counsel respectfully requests that the Court enter an order allowing counsel

to appear by telephone for the hearing on May, 22, 2023.

It is not expected that excludable delay pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections

3161, et seq. will occur as a result of this motion or from an order based thereon. 

Respectfully submitted this 5 day of May, 2023. th

s/ David Eisenberg

DAVID EISENBERG

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1581 Filed 05/05/23 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 23, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the

Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic

Filing to the CM/ECF registrants listed for this case.

 s/ David Eisenberg 

 David Eisenberg

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1581 Filed 05/05/23 Page 2 of 2
#### Patricia MONDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Abdulhakim BACKUSH, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. WD 42060.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 12, 1990.

John L. White, Norton, White & Norton, Kansas City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert Ernest Gould, Gould & Moore, Kansas City, for defendants-respondents.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from judgment entered on a claim for personal injuries.

Judgment Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)
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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon Defendant Michael Lacey’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time for Filing Reply 

in Further Support of Defendant Lacey’s Motion to Amend Conditions of Release, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Extending the otherwise applicable time for filing all Defendant Lacey’s Reply in Further 

Support of his Motion to Amend Conditions of Release seven (7) days to be due on or before April 

16, 2019.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 517-1 Filed 04/04/19 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Vignette Corporation (the Company) hereby certify that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

March 15, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Aviles                
|Michael A. Aviles                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|/s/ Charles W. Sansbury              
|Charles W. Sansbury                  
|Chief Financial Officer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00239-CR

William George Brown

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-10-30284-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 1, 2019
Unassociated Document


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10-N-1

    


    Amendment
to the

    Ford
Motor Company

    Annual
Incentive Compensation Plan

    (effective
as of December 31, 2008)

    


    


    The
following sentence shall be added to the end of Section 15(c) of the Ford Motor
Company Annual Incentive Compensation Plan:

    


    


    "Further,
any mandatory deferral made pursuant to this paragraph must designate the time
and form of payment of any Award subject to such mandatory
deferral."
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3346

_____________________________
A NTONIO O WENS , Petitioner,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certio rari

— Original Jurisdiction.

August 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

R AY , C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorize d motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Antonio Owens, pro se , Petitioner.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.
October 15, 2023

Sent via email to:

The Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Court- Pheonix Division

Sandra Day O'Connor U. S. Courthouse

401 W. Jefferson Strett, SPC 625

Courtroom 605

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

humetewa_chambers@azd.uscourts.gov 

Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Unit- Phoenix Division 

cja_evoucher@azd.uscourts.gov 

Re: USA v. Michael Lacey, et al., CR18-00422-PHX-DJH

Letter of Explanation for Daily Transcript Request 

Your Honor:

CJA Defense counsel is respectfully requesting the daily transcripts for all government 

witnesses beginning October 12, 2023, through the conclusion of the government's case. I am 

requesting a daily-turnaround. The reason for the expeditious turnaround time is due to the 

numerous evidentiary rulings and guidance by the Court regarding subject matters that are or 

are not permissable. The transcripts are necessary for effective cross-examination within the 

evidentiary bounds set by this Court. 

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Eric W. Kessler

EWK/jk

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1860-1 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 1
#### R. JACOBS, Respondent, v. Johnnie L. THOMAS and Gwenette A. Thomas, Appellants.

No. 65346.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 6, 1994.

Nadine Valeria Nunn, St. Louis, for appellants.

R. Jacobs, pro se.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie and Gwenette Thomas appeal from an adverse judgment on a promissory note. The matter was tried without a jury. We have reviewed the record and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15614]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force


USAF Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

    The Munitions Quick Look Panel, USAF Scientific Advisory board, 
will meet from 18-19 July 1996 at Dayton, OH, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is for the members to evaluate Air Force 
response to an environmental hazard.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the Scientific Advisory Board 
Secretariat at (703) 697-8404.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-15614 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16196]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.43(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 9, 1996, Arenol Chemical 
Corporation, 189 Meister Avenue, Somerville, New Jersey 08876, made 
application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396)............  I                          
3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (7400).......  I                          
Difenoxin (9168)...........................  I                          
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II                         
Methamphetamine (1105).....................  II                         
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firms plans to manufacture difenoxin, amphetamine, 
methamphetamine and methylphenidate to produce pharmaceutical products 
for distribution to its customers; and 2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine and 
3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine as intermediates for the development of 
other pharmaceutical products.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the above application.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than August 26, 1996.

    Dated: June 18, 1996.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-16196 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M