[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57671-57673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21558]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Action Affecting Export Privileges; Yaudat Mustafa Talyi, a.k.a. 
Joseph Talyi

    In the Matter of: Yaudat Mustafa Talyi a.k.a. Joseph Talyi, 41 
Chamale Cove East, Slidell, Louisiana 70460, and Oakdale FDC, 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, P.O. Box 5600, Oakdale, Louisiana 71463, 
Respondent; Renewal of Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges.

    Pursuant to section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations 
(``EAR''),\1\ the Bureau of Industry and

[[Page 57672]]

Security (``BIS''), U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Office of 
Export Enforcement, has requested that I renew the order (``TDO'') 
issued on March 19, 2004, temporarily denying the export privileges of 
Yaudat Mustafa Talyi, a.k.a. Joseph Talyi (``Tayli''), 41 Chamale Cove 
East, Slidell, Louisiana 70460; and Oakdale FDC, Federal Bureau of 
Prisons, P.O. Box 5060, Oakdale, Louisiana 71463. BIS is requested that 
the TDO be renewed for a period of 180 days or until an administrative 
case against Talyi is completed, whichever occurs earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EAR, which are currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-
774 (2004, are issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, 
as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420) (2000) (the ``Act''). From 
August 21, 1994, through November 12, 2000, the Act was in lapse. 
During that period, the President, through Executive Order 12924, 
which had been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the last 
of which was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR, 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)), 
continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707 (2000)) (``IEEPA''). On 
November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized and it remained in 
effect through August 20, 2001. Since August 21, 2001, the Act has 
been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of 
August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended by the 
Notice of August 6, 2004, (69 FR 48763 (August 10, 2004), continued 
the Regulations in effect under the IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its August 26, 2004, request for renewal of the TDO, BIS states 
that based upon new evidence, and evidence previously adduced that was 
the basis for the issuance of the initial order temporarily denying the 
export privileges of Talyi, as well as the subsequent renewals,\2\ it 
believes that renewal of the current TDO is necessary to prevent 
further violations of the export control laws of the United States. See 
BIS Request for Renewal dated August 26, 2004, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement 
(``Assistant Secretary'') initially issued a TDO against Talyi and 
his two companies on September 30, 2002. The Assistant Secretary 
renewed the TDO on March 29, 2003, modified it on July 24, 2003, to 
add related persons, again renewed it on September 24, 2003, and 
renewed it on March 19, 2004, as to Talyi alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BIS evidence attached to its request for renewal of the TDO 
indicates that Talyi has refused to enter into a settlement agreement, 
to which he previously agreed, concerning a BIS administrative 
enforcement case pending against him. See id. at 4-6. That settlement 
agreement was consistent with the criminal plea agreement that Talyi 
entered into that resulted in his criminal conviction. See id. at 7.
    Specifically, BIS evidence indicates that on January 29, 2004, 
pursuant to a plea agreement filed in the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Talyi pled guilty to two felony 
counts of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for 
his participation in the export and attempted export of items to the 
United Arab Emirates that were violations of the initial TDO. See id. 
at 5. Talyi's plea agreement further stated that Talyi agreed to settle 
the BIS administrative case by paying $75,000 civil penalty and 
accepting a 10-year denial of export privileges.\3\ See id. BIS 
evidence indicates the plea agreement stated that a copy of the 
settlement agreement for BIS's administrative case was attached 
thereto. See id. BIS evidence also indicates that settlement documents 
consistent with Talyi's criminal plea agreement were sent to Talyi's 
counsel on March 2, 2004. See id. at 5-6. However, BIS evidence has 
established that counsel for Talyi ignored repeated attempts by counsel 
for BIS to discuss the administrative case throughout the spring of 
2004 and refused to return a signed settlement agreement consistent 
with the terms of the plea agreement. See id. at 6. Based on the 
foregoing, BIS has established that, to date, Talyi has failed to enter 
into a settlement agreement consistent with his criminal plea agreement 
despite his agreement to do so. See id. at 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On April 28, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Jay C. Zainey 
sentenced Talyi to five months in prison, five months of home 
confinement, one year of supervised release, and a $25,000 criminal 
fine for the two felony convictions. See id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BIS evidence further indicates that in failing to enter into a 
settlement agreement with BIS, it appears Talyi has breached the terms 
of his criminal plea agreement. See id. at 6. Additionally, due to 
Talyi's failure to abide by the terms of his agreement, BIS was forced 
to institute a formal administrative proceeding against Talyi and he 
has defaulted in that matter.

See id.

    In light of the above, I find that Talyi has demonstrated a 
continued pattern of noncompliance with the export control laws of the 
United States and terms of agreements with and orders of the United 
States government that establishes Talyi's complete disregard for the 
export control laws of the United States. Specifically, despite a TDO 
being issued against him on September 30, 2002, Talyi began violating 
its terms less than two weeks later. Then, on January 29, 2004, Talyi 
pled guilty to two felony counts for violations of the initial TDO and 
agreed to settle the BIS administrative case by paying a $75,000 civil 
penalty and accepting a 10-year denial of his export privileges. 
Despite executing the plea agreement, which stated the BIS settlement 
agreement was attached, Talyi has now refused to enter into a 
settlement agreement consistent with plea agreement and has forced BIS 
to pursue a formal administrative case against him due to his repeated 
failure to engage in any constructive settlement negotiations. Finally, 
Talyi has defaulted in the BIS administrative case pending against him 
and has apparently breached the terms of his criminal plea agreement.
    Accordingly, I am renewing the order temporarily denying the export 
privileges of Talyi for a period of 180 days or until the 
administrative enforcement case against him is completed, whichever 
occurs earlier as I have concluded that a TDO against Talyi continues 
to be necessary, in the public interest, to prevent an imminent 
violation of the EAR.

It is Therefore Ordered:

    First, that Yaudat Mustafa Talyi, a.k.a. Joseph Talyi (``Talyi''), 
41 Chamale Cove East, Slidell, Louisiana 70460; and Oakdale FDC, 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, P.O. Box 5060, Oakdale, Louisiana 71463 (the 
``Denied Person'') may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any 
way in any transaction involving any commodity, software of technology 
(hereinafter collectively referred to as ``item'') exported or to be 
exported from the United States that is subject to the Export 
Administration Regulations (``EAR''), or in any other activity subject 
to the EAR, including, but not limited to:
    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License 
Exception, or export control document;
    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, 
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, 
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, 
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the 
United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity 
subject to the EAR; or
    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item 
exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to 
the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the 
following:
    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item 
subject to the EAR;
    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted 
acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or 
control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be 
exported from the United States,

[[Page 57673]]

including financing or other support activities related to a 
transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire 
such ownership, possession or control;
    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition 
or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to 
the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
    D. Obtain from the Denied Person order in the United States any 
item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item 
will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR 
that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is 
owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any 
item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the 
Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to 
the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For 
purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, 
repair, modification or testing.
    Third, that, in addition to the related person named above, after 
notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the 
EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization 
related to the denied person by affiliation, ownership, control, or 
position or responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services 
may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.
    Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or 
other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that 
are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-
origin technology.
    In accordance with the provisions of section 766.24(e) of the EAR, 
denied persons may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full 
written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the 
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 
South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
    This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 
a period of 180 days or until an administrative enforcement case 
against Talyi is completed, whichever occurs earlier.
    A copy of this Order shall be served on Talyi and shall be 
published in the Federal Register.

    Entered this 13th day of September, 2004.
Julie L. Myers,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 04-21558 Filed 9-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M