alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016191EN.01002902.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/29

---

Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission

(Case T-580/14) (1)

1

((Customs union - Import of flavoured or coloured sugar syrups from Andorra - Fraud - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission of import duties - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 191/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: I. Toda Jiménez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 2376 final of 15 April 2014, finding in a particular case that remission of import duties was not justified (REM 02/2012).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL is ordered to pay one third of the costs of the European Commission and its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL is ordered to pay one third of the costs of the European Commission and its own costs.

| 3. | The European Commission is ordered to bear two thirds of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission is ordered to bear two thirds of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1750 Skiascopic rack. ( a ) *Identification.* A skiascopic rack is a device that is a rack and a set of attached ophthalmic lenses of various dioptric strengths intended as an aid in refraction.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 1124, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38812, July 25, 2001]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Financing Social Security

              																	United States. Congressional Budget Office					 and 	O'Neill, June. 						*Financing Social Security : Issues for the Short and Long Term*,										July 1977,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/872,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GVC Venture Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard
Zimmerman, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

February 13, 2006

                                              /s/ Bernard Zimmerman
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Bernard Zimmerman, President
                                              (Principal Executive Officer) and
                                              Treasurer (Principal Financial and
                                              Accounting Officer)
#### § 1.1286-2 Stripped inflation-protected debt instruments.

*Stripped inflation-protected debt instruments.* If a Treasury Inflation-Protected Security is stripped under the Department of the Treasury's Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (STRIPS) program, the holders of the principal and coupon components must use the discount bond method (as described in § 1.1275-7(e)) to account for the original issue discount on the components.

[T.D. 8709, 62 FR 621, Jan. 6, 1997. Redesignated by T.D. 8838, 64 FR 48547, Sept. 7, 1999; T.D. 9609, 78 FR 668, Jan. 4, 2013]
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8089 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require 

certain additional provider screening under the Medicaid 

program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 8089 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid 

3 Fraud Prevention Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MEDICAID PROVIDER SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. 

5 Section 1902(kk)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1396a(kk)(1)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘The State’’ and inserting: 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The State’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL PROVIDER SCREEN12 ING.—Beginning January 1, 2027, as part of 

13 the enrollment (or reenrollment or revalidation 

14 of enrollment) of a provider or supplier under 

15 this title, and not less frequently than quarterly 

16 during the period that such provider or supplier 

17 is so enrolled, the State conducts a check of the 

18 Death Master File (as such term is defined in 

19 section 203(d) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 8089 RFS

1 2013) to determine whether such provider or 

2 supplier is deceased.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11174

Summary Calendar

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants,

LAWRENCE J. WARFIELD, Receiver,

Counter Defendant-Appellee,

v.

CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,

Counter Claimant,

LONNIE GLENN SCHMIDT,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:02-CV-605

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

1

In his notice of appeal, Schmidt also appeals the district court’s ruling “to keep in full

force and effect Temporary Order Placing Assets of Lonnie Schmidt and Daniel Schmidt in

Receivership,” a substantive challenge to the court’s decision. Because Schmidt is not a party

to the lawsuit, he can appeal such substantive determinations only under “a rare exception to

the general rule,” Castillo v. Cameron County, 238 F.3d 339, 349 (5th Cir. 2001), that “only

parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment,”

with “the better practice [being] for such a nonparty to seek intervention for purposes of appeal,” Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988). Because “the equities weigh [against] hearing

the appeal,” Castillo, 238 F.3d at 349 (internal citations and quotations omitted), given

Schmidt’s egregious conduct during the course ofthis suit, we do not consider this aspect of his

non-party appeal.

2

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In an action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission involving an alleged “Ponzi scheme,”the district court appointed a temporary receiver,

Lawrence Warfield. He served Lonnie Schmidt, a non-party, with a copy of the

Receivership Order, which directed that all persons holding certain assets provide them to the receiver, but Schmidt did not adequately comply. On Warfield’s

petition, the court ordered Schmidt individually to turn over the assets, but he

did not, nor did he appear at the show-cause hearing. The court then held him

in contempt; after several years, he was finally located and taken into custody.

After an extensive period of incarceration, Schmidt agreed to comply with

the court’s orders and was given leave to produce relevant documents. In early

January 2008, Warfield recommended that Schmidt’s contempt be purged, and

on June 5 the district court so ruled. Because contempt has been purged, the appeal is dismissed as moot. See Port v. Heard, 764 F.2d 423, 426-27 (5th Cir.

1985).1 Schmidt’s “Motion for Order To Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be

Dismissed” is DENIED.

The Appeal is DISMISSED.
#### § 1.141-11 Acquisition of nongovernmental output property. [Reserved]
§ 1.302-3 Substantially disproportionate redemption. ( a ) Section 302(b)(2) provides for the treatment of an amount received in redemption of stock as an amount received in exchange for such stock if— ( 1 ) Immediately after the redemption the shareholder owns less than 50 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock as provided in section 302(b)(2)(B),
( 2 ) The redemption is a substantially disproportionate redemption within the meaning of section 302(b)(2)(C), and
( 3 ) The redemption is not pursuant to a plan described in section 302(b)(2)(D). Section 318(a) (relating to constructive ownership of stock) shall apply both in making the disproportionate redemption test and in determining the percentage of stock ownership after the redemption. The requirements under section 302(b)(2) shall be applied to each shareholder separately and shall be applied only with respect to stock which is issued and outstanding in the hands of the shareholders. Section 302(b)(2) only applies to a redemption of voting stock or to a redemption of both voting stock and other stock. Section 302(b)(2) does not apply to the redemption solely of nonvoting stock (common or preferred). However, if a redemption is treated as an exchange to a particular shareholder under the terms of section 302(b)(2), such section will apply to the simultaneous redemption of nonvoting preferred stock (which is not section 306 stock) owned by such shareholder and such redemption will also be treated as an exchange. Generally, for purposes of this section, stock which does not have voting rights until the happening of an event, such as a default in the payment of dividends on preferred stock, is not voting stock until the happening of the specified event. Subsection 302(b)(2)(D) provides that a redemption will not be treated as substantially disproportionate if made pursuant to a plan the purpose or effect of which is a series of redemptions which result in the aggregate in a distribution which is not substantially disproportionate. Whether or not such a plan exists will be determined from all the facts and circumstances.
( b ) The application of paragraph (a) of this section is illustrated by the following example:
Example. Corporation M has outstanding 400 shares of common stock of which A, B, C and D each own 100 shares or 25 percent. No stock is considered constructively owned by A, B, C or D under section 318. Corporation M redeems 55 shares from A, 25 shares from B, and 20 shares from C. For the redemption to be disproportionate as to any shareholder, such shareholder must own after the redemptions less than 20 percent (80 percent of 25 percent) of the 300 shares of stock then outstanding. After the redemptions, A owns 45 shares (15 percent), B owns 75 shares (25 percent), and C owns 80 shares (262 ⁄ 3 percent). The distribution is disproportionate only with respect to A.
§ 1.179D-3 Rules relating to the increased deduction for prevailing wage and apprenticeship. ( a ) In general. If any energy efficient commercial building property (as defined in section 179D(c)(1)), energy efficient building retrofit property (as defined in section 179D(f)(3)), or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan (as defined in section 179D(f)(2)) satisfies the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, the applicable dollar value for determining the maximum amount of the deduction determined under section 179D(b)(2) is the increased amount described in section 179D(b)(3)(A). For purposes of this section, installation means those activities described in §§ 1.45-7(d)(3) and 1.45-8(g)(1) that are performed with respect to energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan within the meaning of section 179D before such property is placed in service.
( b ) *Certain energy efficient commercial building property requirements.* Energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (b) if it is one of the following— ( 1 ) Property the installation of which began prior to January 29, 2023; or
( 2 ) Property that meets the prevailing wage requirements of section 45(b)(7) of the Code and § 1.45-7, the apprenticeship requirements of section 45(b)(8) of the Code and § 1.45-8, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of § 1.45-12, all with respect to the installation of any property.
( c ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan installed in taxable years ending after June 25, 2024, and the installation of which begins after June 25, 2024. Taxpayers may apply this section to energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan installed in taxable years ending on or before June 25, 2024, and energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan installed in taxable years ending after June 25, 2024, the installation of which begins before June 25, 2024, provided that taxpayers follow this section in its entirety and in a consistent manner.
[T.D. 9998, 89 FR 53272, June 25, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5320 Preformed alterable cranioplasty plate. ( a ) *Identification.* A preformed alterable cranioplasty plate is a device that is implanted into a patient to repair a skull defect. It is constructed of a material, e.g., tantalum, that can be altered or reshaped at the time of surgery without changing the chemical behavior of the material.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
§ 884.5360 Contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) and introducer. ( a ) *Identification.* A contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) is a device used to prevent pregnancy. The device is placed high in the uterine fundus with a string extending from the device through the cervical os into the vagina. This generic type of device includes the introducer, but does not include contraceptive IUD's that function by drug activity, which are subject to the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (see § 310.502).
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Date premarket approval application (PMA) or notice of completion of a product development protocol (PDP) is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before August 4, 1986, for any IUD and introducer that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has on or before August 4, 1986, been found to be substantially equivalent to an IUD and introducer that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other IUD and introducer shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 16649, May 5, 1986; 85 FR 18443, Apr. 2, 2020]
# C_2014261EN.01002601.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/26

---

Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Taps)

(Case T-334/14)

2014/C 261/49

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villeroy & Boch AG (Mettlach, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2014, in Case R 812/2012-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2014, in Case R 812/2012-3;

| — | make an order for costs against OHIM and, as the case may be, the intervener if the latter enters an appearance and contests the action. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order for costs against OHIM and, as the case may be, the intervener if the latter enters an appearance and contests the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design of a tap — Community design registration number No 1 264 568-0004

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community design: Applicant

Proprietor of the Community design:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Villeroy & Boch AG

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Lack of novelty and of individual character compared with its own design for a tap (No 00 584 560-0004)

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity upheld

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of the same regulation.

Pleas in law:

---
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Rodger V. Berry

The motion by the state for a review of the order of the trial court imposing a limitation as to the grounds of appeal of the state from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted. The order of the Superior Court limiting the grounds of the *652state’s appeal is modified pursuant to the provisions of Practice Book § 694 by striking therefrom the limitations imposed.

Submitted February 23

decided March 14, 1968

*David B. Salsman,*assistant state’s attorney, in support of the motion.

*Jacob D. Zeldes,*in opposition.
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1320 Nuclear uptake probe. ( a ) *Identification.* A nuclear uptake probe is a device intended to measure the amount of radionuclide taken up by a particular organ or body region. This generic type of device may include a single or multiple detector probe, signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 892.9.
[55 FR 48444, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 65 FR 2322, Jan. 14, 2000]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

72 KA 15-00995 PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARK D. ABBOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIEL J. PUNCH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered September 15, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, as a class E felony. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to appeal the severity of the sentence ( see generally People v Maracle , 19 NY3d 925, 928), we reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court