alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

Room 352-G 

200 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20201 

COMUNICADO DE PRENSA

PARA DISTRIBUCION INMEDIATA

14 de septiembre de 2017

Contacto: Oficina de Prensa

(202) 690-6145 | CMS Preguntas de Prensa

In English

Los CMS Revelan el Nuevo Diseño de la Tarjeta de Medicare

Quitar los números del seguro social fortalece las protecciones contra el fraude para alrededor de 58 

millones de estadounidenses

Hoy los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (los CMS por sus siglas en inglés) dieron al público 

la primera vista del nuevo diseño de la tarjeta de Medicare. La nueva tarjeta de Medicare cuenta con un 

número exclusivo y asignado al azar que reemplaza el número actual basado en el número del seguro 

social.

Los CMS comenzarán a enviar las nuevas tarjetas a las personas con beneficios de Medicare a partir de 

abril 2018 para cumplir con la fecha límite legal para reemplazar todas las tarjetas de Medicare 

existentes para abril de 2019. Además del anuncio de hoy, las personas con Medicare podrán ver el 

nuevo diseño de la tarjeta de Medicare en el manual de Medicare y Usted de 2018. Los manuales están 

en proceso de envío por correo y llegarán durante el mes de septiembre. 

“El objetivo de la iniciativa de quitar los números de seguro social de las tarjetas de Medicare es ayudar 

a prevenir el fraude, combatir el robo de identidad, y proteger los fondos de los contribuyentes,” dijo la 

Administradora de los CMS, Seema Verma. “Estamos muy entusiasmados de compartir el nuevo 

diseño.”

Los CMS les han asignado a todas las personas con beneficios de Medicare un nuevo número exclusivo 

de Medicare que contiene una combinación de números y letras mayúsculas. Las personas con Medicare 

recibirán una nueva tarjeta de Medicare en el correo con instrucciones de como destruir de una manera 

segura y con cuidado su tarjeta de Medicare actual y mantener el nuevo número confidencial. La 

asignación del nuevo número no cambiará los beneficios que reciben las personas con Medicare.

Los proveedores de salud y las personas con Medicare podrán usar herramientas de búsqueda seguras 

que les permitirán el acceso rápido a los nuevos números de Medicare cuando sea necesario. También 

habrá un periodo de transición de 21 meses donde los médicos, proveedores de salud, y 

suministradores podrán usar ambos el número actual basado en el número del seguro social o el nuevo 

número exclusivo de Medicare para facilitar la transición.

Esta iniciativa toma pasos importantes para proteger las identidades de las personas con Medicare. Los 

CMS también están trabajando con los proveedores de salud para contestar sus preguntas y asegurar 

que tengan la información que necesitan para hacer una transición exitosa al nuevo número de 

Medicare. Para más información, por favor visite: www.cms.gov/newcard
###

Reciba noticias de los CMS en cms.gov/newsroom, Reciba noticias de los CMS por correo electrónico y 

síganos por Twitter @CMSgovPress
#### SCHMITT v. CONTINENTAL-DIAMOND FIBRE CO.

No. 41394.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Jan. 25, 1940.

Tenney, Harding, Sherman & Rogers, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Rosen, Francis & Qeveland, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

BARNES, District Judge.

This matter came on to be heard on the motion of the defendant to retax costs.

The question is as to whether or not the cost and expense of the taking of the deposition of the plaintiff by the defendant should be taxed as costs against the plaintiff, the losing party, and in favor of the defendant.

The rules permit the taking of the deposition and its taking can be said to have been reasonably necessary, — in fact, the court is of the opinion that to have failed to take the deposition would have been negligence. The costs of the taking of the deposition should be taxed against the plaintiff.

An appropriate order may be made at the opening of court on Monday, January 29, 1940, without any other or further notice than this.
#### Bernice Turner, Appellant, v Arthur L. Turner, Re*999spondent.

[609 NYS2d 487]

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: After 30 years of marriage, plaintiff wife left the marital residence and in August 1991 commenced this action seeking a divorce based upon defendant’s cruel and inhuman treatment. She also sought equitable distribution of the marital property. Defendant withdrew his answer, allowing plaintiff to proceed with the divorce action by default. A trial was held on the economic issues and Supreme Court, without setting forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision, distributed the marital assets approximately 62% to defendant and 38% to plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the assets of this long-term marriage, to which both parties contributed, should have been divided equally. We agree.

Supreme Court properly awarded each party ownership of one income property because the stipulated equity in each was approximately the same. Supreme Court also properly ordered that the marital residence be sold and the proceeds equally divided. Supreme Court erred, however, in not awarding the parties equal shares of the net rental income generated by the rental properties during the pendency of the action. Although defendant managed the properties while the action was pending, the record reveals the financial and personal contributions of both parties to the acquisition and maintenance of the income properties.

Supreme Court further erred by awarding the parties their respective retirement plans. Both retirement plans were marital property *(see, Majauskas v Majauskas,*61 NY2d 481) and, at the time of trial, defendant’s retirement package was worth more than double plaintiff’s. Plaintiff testified that she ran the household and raised the parties’ four children before obtaining full-time employment during the last 10 years of the marriage. Plaintiff was awarded no maintenance and has only a limited time to contribute to her own pension plan. Consequently, plaintiff was entitled to an equitable share of defendant’s pension, which can be in the form of a distributive award.

Finally, we agree with plaintiff that she is entitled to reimbursement from defendant for a Workers’ Compensation award in the amount of $4,410, which defendant had confiscated. Supreme Court improperly offset against that amount *1000various amounts defendant claimed to have expended for marital purposes. Because defendant submitted no proof of the amounts expended, he was not entitled to an offset. We modify the judgment by deleting the third, seventh and eighth decretal paragraphs, and remit this matter to Supreme Court to distribute the property in accordance with this memorandum. At that time, plaintiff may address to Supreme Court her application for counsel fees to prosecute this appeal. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Strobridge, J. — Equitable Distribution.) Present — Green, J. P., Balio, Law-ton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, LeAnne M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: October 17, 2011       
|                             
|/s/    LEANNE M.
STEWART     
|LeAnne M. Stewart            
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC Health
Corporation and will be retained by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Johnstown
Consolidated Income Partners/2 1995 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000812431
<NAME> JOHNSTOWN CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS 2
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             424
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           2,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                     407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,231
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   472
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       147
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Partnership has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 21, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 21, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0481. DANIEL A. SPOTTSVILLE v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

SU98CR1445
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

###### **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-36324) pertaining to the Minuteman International, Inc. 2000Restricted Stock Plan of our report dated February 12, 2003, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedule of Minuteman International,Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2002.

 

 
| /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| March 24, 2003            |
| Chicago, Illinois         |

 

----
Filed 2/4/14 P. v. Murray CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RONALD MUR RAY

,

Defendant and Appellant. B2 4 9132

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. Y A 0 82450 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

M ark S. Arnold

, Judge. Affirmed.

Linn Davis , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________ ____________2

Ronald Murray was charged in an i nformation with the murder of Mun Seog Jang

(Pen. Code, § § 187 , subd. (a) ). 1 Represented by counsel, Murray pleaded n ot guilty to

the charge

.

According to the evidence at trial, early on the morning of September 30, 201 1

,

there was a physical confrontation outside a Gardenia donut shop between Murray and

Jang , both of whom had been drinking alcohol. Murray pun ched Jang, who fell to the

ground, and then punched and/or kicked Jang on the chest and head. 2 Police were called

,

and Jang was transported to the hospital, where he later died of his head injuries

. T he

jury acquitted Murray of second degree murder and c onvicted him of voluntary

manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a) ) as a lesser included offense

.

Following argument by counsel, the trial court sentenced Murray to the middle

term of six years in state prison. The court ordered Murray to pay a $ 4 0 court security

f ee, a $ 3 0 criminal conviction assessment

, a $2 4 0 restitution fine and $47, 057.80 in

victim restitution

. The court imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to

section 1 202.45. Murray was awarded a total of 6 22 days of presentence credit ( 541

actual days and 81 days conduct credit)

.

We appointed counsel to represent Murray on appeal. After examination of the

record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On October 4,

2013 we advised Murray he had 30 days in whic h to personally submit any contentions or

issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the record and are satisfied Murray ’s attorney has fully

complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable iss ue exists. ( Smith v.

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277

- 284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112

- 113; People v

. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 A video of the incident recorded by a donut shop security camera was played for

the jury.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, J.

We concur :

PERLUSS, P. J

WOODS, J.
RCM 2.10

RCM_2.10 No Administration Revised Feb 18, 2014 Page 1 of 1

See FOM1 620 for No Administration and Estate procedure.

Appendices

Appendix B – Order of Descent

See FOM1 Art 6 App D.

Appendix C – Dispensing with Formal Administration of Estate

See FOM1 Art 6 App C.

Appendix D – Appointment of Fiduciary

See FOM1 Art 6 App E.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00885-CR

Victor Perez PRADO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5355

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED July 22, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Shearson Select Advisors Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 Partnership.



/s/ Jennifer Magro
Jennifer Magro
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Director



March 31, 2008
Date

---
@conference{1210211,
  author = {Felix Kim and Sarah Robinson and Nikolai Klimov and John Henry J. Scott},
  title = {Investigation of manufacturing techniques to develop controlled flaws for X-ray computed tomography reliability assessment},
  year = {2023},
  number = {12491},
  month = {2023-04-25 04:04:00},
  publisher = {Proc. SPIE 12491, 8th International Workshop on Reliability of NDT/NDE, Long Beach, CA, US},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936276},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2660458},
  language = {en},
}
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31314-31315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15446]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated June 19, 2008, and published in the Federal 
Register on June 27, 2008, (73 FR 36573), Norac Inc., 405 S. Motor 
Avenue, P.O. Box 577, Azusa, California 91702-3232, made application by 
letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as 
a bulk manufacturer of Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010), a basic class 
of controlled substance listed in schedule I.
    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in 
bulk for sale to its customers.
    One objection was received; however, the objector is not registered 
with DEA as a bulk manufacturer of Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (GHB). DEA 
has determined that the objection received is without merit and does 
not warrant denial of the application. DEA has also determined that the 
Food & Drug Administration does not preclude the sale of GHB to other 
manufacturers for the development of generic GHB products.
    DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined 
that the registration of Norac Inc. to manufacture the listed basic 
class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at 
this time. DEA has investigated Norac Inc. to ensure that the company's 
registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation 
included the inspection and testing of the company's physical security 
systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local 
laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
    Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.


[[Page 31315]]


    Dated: June 23, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-15446 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00412-CV

WILLIAM READY, Appellant

V.

MICHAEL DOUGLAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 506th District Court of Waller County. (Tr. Ct. No. 12-10-21659-B).

TO THE 506TH DISTRICT COURT OF WALLER COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 5th day of May 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or to 

reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed 

by the trial court on February 14, 2014. After submitting the 

case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible 

error in the trial court’s judgment. Accordingly, the Court 

reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to 

the trial court for further proceedings.

The Court orders that the appellees, Michael Douglas, 

pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.
Judgment rendered May 5, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Massengale.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 17, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,041
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                   748
<INVENTORY>                                    18,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               57,526
<PP&E>                                         113,793
<DEPRECIATION>                                 55,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,119
<BONDS>                                        104,041
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       707
<OTHER-SE>                                     30,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,257
<SALES>                                        129,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,853
<CGS>                                          111,564
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               13,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (248)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,025)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.14)
        


</TABLE>