to show that “defendants’ convictions did not violate the Due Process or Ex Post Facto Clauses”); cf. United States v. Davis, 339 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (10th Cir.2003) (ruling that a criminal defendant’s actual notice of a regulation was sufficient to satisfy a statutory requirement that the regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice satisfied the fair notice purpose of the posting requirement and explaining that this ruling is consistent with “related cases holding that a party can be held criminally liable under an unpublished regulation where the party had actual knowledge of its terms”). Thus, the Department’s Guidance Document provided the defendants with fair notice that this definition of waste would be enforced against them. See, e.g., Elias, 269 F.3d at 1014-15 (<HOLDING>). For all of these reasons, we hold the
holding that a plaintiff is required to identify specific acts of individual defendants  for his claim to survive holding that state and local government agencies were not persons under the fca holding that an environmental group established constitutional standing where its members lived near a landfill into which an epa regulation allegedly would permit certain hazardous wastes to be deposited holding that industry groups and various agencies conclusions that certain cyanidecontaining wastes were hazardous provided fair notice to support criminal conviction under rcra despite the defendants claim that the regulation required a specific standardsbased test holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation