Yuri montgomery seattle

Anna U. Chief Service Delivery. Irene V. Full Stack Developer. Marina D. Backend Developer. Sergey M. Frontend Developer. Alex F. QA Team Lead. Serhiy F. Alex P. Alex H. Dmytro S. Tanya A. Range Systems provided the requested price quote in a reply e-mail sent on July 11, T, page 1 Respondent placed an order for two of the gun clearing devices via e-mail sent on July 15, Respondent paid Range Systems, Inc.

T; BIS Ex. E, page 6, admission 8b Respondent directed Ranges Systems to export the gun clearing devices to Micei in Macedonia via their freight forwarder, requesting that he be advised of the weight and size of the boxes via e-mail with a copy to Micei representatives. Micei reimbursed Respondent for the purchase of the gun clearing devices. E, page 7, admission 8i E, page 7, admission 8e; BIS Ex.

T; X, and W The gun clearing devices were manufactured in the United States. Y, Z, and AA The gun clearing devices are items subject to the Regulations. I; 15 CFR E, page 8, admission 8k and 8m Respondent benefited from the purchase of the gun clearing devices.

On August 5, , Respondent sent an e-mail to Galls, Inc. Respondent intended to export the boots and shoes from the United States to Macedonia. E, page 8, admission 9d; BIS Ex.

BB Therefore, please make sure you quote the best possible price so you can so we can win this one, too. Respondent knew he was subject to the Denial Order on or about August 5, , at or about the time he requested a quotation. E, page 9, admission 8f Charges 4 and 11 CC DD The items in that order number consist of shoes and remote strobe tubes.

EE and FF E, page 9, admission 10b Micei reimbursed Respondent for purchasing the shoes and remote strobe tubes.

E, page 10, admission 10i iii Respondent intended to export the shoes and strobe tubes from the United States to Macedonia. The shoes and remote strobe tubes are items subject to the Regulations. E, page 11, admission 10m Respondent benefited from the VISA card purchase of the shoes and remote strobe tubes from Galls by earning credit towards the purchase of 9 Remote strobe tubes are components of the flashing emergency lights found on vehicles such as police cars.

PO Frm Fmt Sfmt airline tickets. E, page 10, admission j and finding of fact 17 above Charges 5 and 12 HH and II LL Respondent ordered the shirts for or on behalf of Micei and intended them to be exported from the United States to Macedonia. BIS NN Respondent paid for the order with his credit card. Micei reimbursed Respondent for purchasing the shirts. E, page 12, admission 11i iii The shirts were exported from the United States to Macedonia on or about August 13, NN The shirts are items subject to the Regulations.

E, page 12, admission 11m Respondent benefited from purchasing the shirts from a U. E, page 12, admission 11j; Finding of Fact 17, above Charges 6 and 13 Respondent ordered two load binders, one ratchet strap, one binder chain, and one safety shackle from Maintenance Products, Inc. E, page 13, admission 12a; BIS Ex. OO and QQ Respondent paid Maintenance Products, Inc. E, page 13, admission 12b; BIS Ex. PP and QQ Micei reimbursed Respondent for purchasing the binder, ratchet strap, binder chain, and safety shackle.

E, page 14, admission 12i iii As Respondent intended, the load liners, ratchet strap, binder chain, and safety shackle exported from the United States to Macedonia on or about September 15, E, page 13, admission e; BIS Ex.

RR and SS TT and UU The load binders, ratchet strap, binder chain and safety shackle are items subject to the Regulations. I and 49 CFR E, page 14, admission 12m; BIS Ex.

By charging the purchase from the U. E, page 14, admission 12j; see also, Finding of Fact 17, above Charges 7 and 14 VV E, page 14, admission 13b; BIS Ex. WW E, page 15, admission 13e; BIS Ex. XX Micei reimbursed Respondent for purchasing the uniform pants. E, pages 15 and 16, admission 13i iii The uniform pants are items subject to the Regulations. E, page 16, admission 13m Respondent benefitted from his purchase of the uniform pants with his VISA credit card by earning airline frequent flier miles.

Steadman v. In the simplest terms, the Agency must demonstrate that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, U. Malinkovski, was convicted in the U. District Court for the District of Columbia of knowingly and willingly exporting and causing the export of U. Code, shall be eligible for any export license for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction.

Therefore, pursuant to the Regulations at Sections Therefore, Respondent had notice of the Denial Order no later than October 24, He also knew it was in effect at all times from September 11, until January 22, , which covers each transaction at issue. Micei, Inc. Respondent benefited from the purchase of the boots by accumulating frequent flier miles with United Airlines.

The Denial Order which prohibited these activities was in effect at the time and Respondent had knowledge of the Denial Order. Therefore, Charge 1 is proved. Therefore, Charge 8 is proved. Respondent placed an order for two of the gun clearing devices via e- VerDate Mar Dec 29, Jkt mail sent on July 15, Respondent directed Range Systems to export the gun clearing devices to Micei in Macedonia via their freight forwarder and Micei reimbursed Respondent for the purchase of the gun clearing devices.

Range systems exported the gun clearing devices from the United States to Macedonia on or about July 18, The gun clearing devices were also manufactured in the United States and subject to the Regulations.

Respondent also benefited from the purchase of the gun clearing devices. Therefore, Charge 2 is proved. Therefore, Charge 9 is proved. Therefore, Respondent violated 15 CFR PO Frm Fmt Sfmt These activities show, by the preponderance of reliable, probative, and credible evidence, that Respondent carried on negotiations concerning the 10, pairs of shoes and that those actions violated the terms of his Denial Order which Respondent knew was in effect, in violation of 15 CFR Therefore, Charge 3 is proved.

Respondent benefited from the VISA card purchase of the shoes and remote strobe tubes from Galls by earning credit towards the purchase of airline tickets. Therefore, Charge 4 is proved. Therefore, Charge 11 is proved. Therefore, Charge 5 is proved. Therefore, Charge 12 is proved. As detailed in the Findings of Fact, Charges 6 and 13 reflect that Respondent ordered two load binders, one ratchet strap, one binder chain, and one safety shackle from Maintenance Products, Inc.

Micei reimbursed Respondent for purchasing these items. The load binders, binder chain, and safety shackle were manufactured in the United States. Therefore, Charge 6 is proved. Therefore, Charge 13 is proved. Respondent benefited from his purchase of the uniform pants with his VISA credit card by earning airline frequent flier miles. Therefore, Charge 7 is proved. Therefore, Charge 14 is proved. At all times relevant in these proceedings, Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges have jurisdiction to adjudicate export control cases for the Bureau of Industry and Security.

At all times relevant, The Denial Order was in effect. At all times relevant, Respondent was subject to the terms of a Denial Order. At all times relevant, Respondent knew he was subject to the Denial Order.

All items in question were subject to the Regulations at Section All items in question were subject to the prohibitions in the Denial Order. As detailed in the Findings of Fact, from on or about July 2, to on or about October 8, , on seven occasions as described in Charges 1 through 7 in the Schedule of Violations, Respondent took actions specifically prohibited by the Denial Order in violation of 15 CFR As detailed in the Findings of Fact, from on or about July 2, to on or about October 8, , on six occasions as described in Charges 8, 9 and 11—14 in the Schedule of Violations, Respondent took actions prohibited by the Denial Order with knowledge that a violation of his Denial Order had occurred, were about to occur, or were intended to occur, in violation of 15 CFR BIS had authority to issue the Denial Order and is still operating under that authority.

See, November 10, , Memorandum and Order disposing of numerous motions that the parties submitted on predecisional issues at The Agency and the Courts have held that continuing the operation and effectiveness of the EAA and its regulations by issuing Executive Orders by the President is a valid exercise of authority.

Therefore, affirmative defense number one is rejected as being without merit. The undersigned VerDate Mar Dec 29, Jkt has previously ruled that at all relevant times in these proceedings, Memoranda of Agreement and an Office of Personnel Management authorization letters properly establish jurisdiction for U.

See, November 10, , Memorandum and Order disposing of numerous motions that the parties submitted on pre-decisional issues at 3, 13, and Therefore, affirmative defense number two is rejected as being without merit. He states that in May , criminal charges were initiated against him in the U. District of Columbia for alleged violations of this Denial Order.

In that criminal action was dismissed and he was re-indicted on substantially identical charges in the U. The Second Superseding Indictment was filed in the same court. PO Frm Fmt Sfmt Respondent claims the criminal prosecution was based on his alleged violations of this Denial Order and that his subsequent trial resulted in a mistrial because the jurors could not agree.

Respondent further claims that following the mistrial, he filed a motion for judgment of acquittal which the district judge granted. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, dismissing the Indictment with prejudice against this Respondent.

United States, U. The government later indicted the defendants for essentially the same conduct so they moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is not a bar to the later criminal prosecution because the administrative proceedings were civil, not criminal.

The Supreme Court found that the double jeopardy clause protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense. Moreover, Respondent was neither acquitted nor convicted.

Therefore, affirmative defense number three is rejected as being without merit. See, November 10, , Memorandum and Order disposing of numerous motions that the parties submitted on pre-decisional issues at 3.

Simply put, collateral estoppel would prevent a party from relitigating an issue previously decided against the party. Respondent claims that the dismissal of his criminal case is the same as an acquittal. According to Respondent, the jury could not agree on a verdict, and the proceedings ended in mistrial. On application of the government, the District Judge dismissed with prejudice.

Respondent was not convicted in the criminal case. The three essential elements are 1 an earlier decision on the issue, 2 a final judgment on the merits, and 3 the involvement of the same parties, or parties in privity with the original parties. As stated in the above discussion on collateral estoppel, there was no decision in the criminal case. Therefore, further analysis of the elements is unnecessary. He has not offered any argument or case law supporting the notion that assessed civil penalties amounting to less than Therefore, the monetary penalty BIS proposes does not violate the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments and affirmative defense number seven is rejected as being without merit.

See, November 10, , Memorandum and Order disposing of numerous motions that the parties submitted on pre-decisional issues at Therefore, affirmative defense number eight is rejected as being without merit. See Order of November 10, at The above language shows that Congress intended to establish separate penalties for civil and criminal proceedings. Once it is established that Congress intended to enact a civil enforcement scheme, only the clearest proof will override that intent and transform what is clearly a civil penalty into what amounts to a criminal penalty.

See, Smith v. Doe, U. Respondent has not presented any evidence such proof. The enhanced civil penalties apply to violations with respect to which enforcement action is pending or commended on or after the date of the enactment of the Act. The effective date of the Act was October 17, Therefore, affirmative defense number eleven is rejected as being without merit. Concerning objection 2, BIS routinely determines what items are subject to its regulations.

To the extent Respondent requests additional information he may avail himself of the Discovery procedures under 15 CFR Waiver is a voluntary relinquishment or abandonment, either express or implied, of a legal right or advantage. However, Respondent offers no evidence or authority on this defense. Therefore, this defense is rejected as being without merit. However, Respondent presents no evidence or authority on this defense. He apparently is referring to the criminal charges that resulted in a hung jury and subsequent dismissal in October Respondent has not produced any plea agreement.

Title 28 U. Time for commencing proceedings Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender or the property is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.

Further, Respondent has not shown how the passage of time within the five-year statute of limitations has disadvantaged or prejudiced him. Here, Respondent makes no specific showing of due process violations but it is assumed that he objects to the entire proceedings. Recommended Sanction Under Section The undersigned agrees. Elashi violated a Denial Order against him and acted with knowledge of these violations by exporting and conspiring to export computer equipment to Syria.

The record is devoid of any acknowledgement of or acceptance of responsibility by Respondent for his actions.

District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Motion advised that the parallel criminal action concluded on October 21, and that counsel for Respondent and counsel for BIS desire to engage in settlement negotiations.

Counsel for Respondent filed his Notice of Attorney Withdrawal on December 2, , since that time Respondent has been self-represented. Respondent did not file his Answer on January 31, BIS received that Motion via facsimile on February 18, Moreover, the regulations do not provide for the filing of a more definite statement.

He also asserted fourteen 14 Affirmative Defenses: 1. Neither this Court nor any of the administrative law judges herein have jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant administrative proceeding.

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, has no jurisdiction over this administrative proceeding. The Charging Letter herein and any of its allegations fail to state facts constituting a valid claim against Respondent. This administrative proceeding is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This administrative decision is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. This administrative proceeding is barred by the doctrine of waiver.

This administrative proceeding is barred by the doctrine of release. This administrative proceeding is barred by the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution of the United States. This administrative proceeding is unauthorized in that the Export Control Regulations used as a basis for the Charging Letter herein lack proper statutory authorization and are thus invalid. The Charging Letter herein is invalid as it alleges claims which are frivolous and insubstantial and made for the sole purpose of obtaining jurisdiction over Respondent.

The goods subject to the Charging Letter are of foreign origin and are therefore not subject to the Charging Letter. This administrative proceeding is violative of the Due Process clause of the Constitution of the United States. Entity Type 1 providers are individual providers who render health care e. Sole proprietors and sole proprietorships are Entity Type 1 Individual providers. Organization health care providers e.

Who must obtain NPI? A covered health care provider, under HIPAA, is any health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction for which the Secretary of Health and Human Services has adopted a standard, even if the health care provider uses a business associate to do so. Yes - The provider accepts the Medicare-approved amount; you will not be billed for any more than the Medicare deductible and coinsurance.