alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2039

___________ Barbara A. Schermer, * * Appellant, * * v. * * BCBSM, Inc., doing business as * Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, * * Appellee. *

___________ Appeals from the United States No. 09-2041 District Court for the ___________ District of Minnesota. Irvin E. Schermer, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant, * * v. * * BCBSM, Inc., doing business as * Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 14, 2009 Filed: December 18, 2009

___________ Before BYE, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
2 The Honorable Franklin L. Noel, Unite d States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- PER CURIAM. Barbara and Irvin Schermer ch allenge the district court's 1 dismissal of their amended complaint. These appeals arise out of a denial of a claim for home health care benefits for Barbara Schermer. Barbara Schermer and her husband, the primary insured on the group health insurance policy issued by BCBSM, sought reimbursement from BCBSM for the expense of having a person come to their home to assist Barbara in tasks such as "wal king, bathing, getting around, getting into bed, [and] getting dressed." As th e district court pointed out, and as is apparent in the complaint, it is clear that medical reports recommend such care for Barbara, and that such care was likely needed. Yet, the i ssue is whether the relevant BCBSM policy covers the expenses associated with the r eceipt of these services. In a thorough and detailed analysis, the magistrate judge 2concluded that the requested custodial care was not covered. The district court, in response to objections to the Report and Recommendation, agreed, as set out in the c ourt's similarly detailed analysis. The Schermers appeal, raising various legal th eories and statutory claims challenging BCBSM's claims procedure and ultimate deni al of benefits as well as challenging particular plan language. Having reviewed the complaint and those portions of the plan that the pleadings necessarily embrace, see Mattes v. ABC Plastics, Inc. , 323 F.3d 695, 697-98 n.4 (8th Cir. 2003), as well as the Schermers' argumen ts on appeal, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the very reasons stated in th e district court's opinion, which expressly adopts the report and recommendation of the ma gistrate judge. Friends of Lake View Sch. Dist. Inc. No. 25 v. Beebe , 578 F.3d 753, 757-58 (8th Ci r. 2009) ("We review de-3- novo a district court's decision to grant a mo tion to dismiss."); Hillstrom v. Kenefick , 484 F.3d 519, 524 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussing j udicial review of a decision to deny benefits under an ERISA plan–whether fo r abuse of discretion or plenary). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### Catherine J. Fleming, as Administratrix, etc., of Thomas F. Fleming, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*New York Transportation Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 28th day of January, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered on the 3d day of February, 1913, denying a motion for a new trial.

Per Curiam:

The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence as to the lack of contributory negligence. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Ingraham, P. J., and Hotchkiss, J., dissented and voted for affirmance. Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 863.89

 864.16

 864.38

 864.61

 864.86

 864.98

 865.06

 865.31

 865.60

 866.75

 868.37

 869.11

 869.68

 870.15

 871.11

 874.97

 876.12

 876.78

 877.38

 878.03

 878.57

 879.09

 879.65

 880.15

 880.55

 880.89

 881.25

 881.72

 882.19

 882.66

 883.15

 529.9

 531.2

 532.3

 533.4

 534.6

 535.2

 535.6

 536.8

 538.2

 543.8

 551.8

 555.5

 558.4

 560.7

 565.6

 585.2

 591.1

 594.6

 597.7

 601.1

 603.9

 606.7

 609.6

 612.2

 614.4

 616.2

 618.1

 620.6

 623.1

 625.6

 628.3

STORAGE

+1.3

+1.3

+1.1

+1.1

+1.2

+0.6

+0.4

+1.2

+1.4

+5.6

+8.0

+3.7

+2.8

+2.4

+4.8

+19.7

+5.9

+3.4

+3.1

+3.4

+2.8

+2.7

+3.0

+2.6

+2.1

+1.8

+1.9

+2.5

+2.5

+2.5

+2.6

CHANGE

682

696

592

629

693

700

767

955

1,049

2,943

4,334

2,041

1,472

1,219

2,509

9,999

3,030

1,779

1,679

1,746

1,450

1,428

1,541

1,370

1,237

1,150

1,149

1,286

1,286

1,319

1,363

INFLOW

 41

 31

 47

 58

 75

 401

 565

 337

 332

 90

 254

 176

 31

 31

 65

 60

 33

 45

 99

 31

 16

 46

 47

 24

 162

 238

 173

 16

 15

 42

 32

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 8

 5

 6

 8

 5

 5

 5

 2

 3

 10

 43

 10

 5

 3

 11

 28

 3

 7

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 15

 5

 3

 10

 7

 5

 7

 5

C.F.S.

 .05

 .03

 .04

 .05

 .03

 .03

 .03

 .01

 .02

 .06

 .27

 .06

 .03

 .02

 .07

 .17

 .02

 .04

 .03

 .03

 .03

 .03

 .03

 .09

 .03

 .02

 .06

 .04

 .03

 .04

 .03

INCHES

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .41

 .24

 .57

 1.22

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 2.00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .72

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .19

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2016 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: January 3, 2017

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +99.4 54,093 3,613 0 0 249 1.52 5.37

ACRE-FEET +99,400 107,293 7,166 0 0 494

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 7,166

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 7,166

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 5.37

JULY 1, 2016 14.31

 528.6

Table 13 

OCT 1, 2016 TO DATE = 14.30
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Susan Weisman, certify that:

I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Coach Industries Group, Inc.;

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Based on my knowledge,
the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditor and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: April 25, 2006



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Susan Weisman                         
|Susan Weisman,                            
|Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
free to leave once detained pursuant to a traffic stop, he is not in custody 

for Miranda purposes unless the encounter escalates into a formal arrest). 

Second, Green contends that the district court erred by 

denying his pretrial motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement 

because they were elicited subsequent to an unconstitutional search. We 

review de novo the district court's legal determination of the 

constitutionality of a search but review its findings of fact for clear error. 

Somee v. State, 124 Nev. 434, 441, 187 P.3d 152, 157-58 (2008). Because a 

reasonable officer would have checked on Green's welfare upon learning 

that he was involved in a traffic accident and discovering him 

unresponsive, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying 

Green's motion on this ground. See State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. 1170, 1175- 

76, 147 P.3d 233, 237 (2006) (adopting the community caretaking 

doctrine); People v. Ray, 476-77, 981 P.2d 928, 937 (Cal. 1999) (the 

community caretaking doctrine applies where an objectively reasonable 

officer would have perceived a need to protect a member of the 

community). 

Third, Green contends that the district court abused its 

discretion by allowing witnesses to testify regarding statements that 

Green's girlfriend made at the scene of the accident. We review a district 

court's determination as to whether a statement falls within a hearsay 

exception for an abuse of discretion. Rodriguez v. State, 128 Nev. 

273 P.3d 845, 848 (2012). The district court admitted the statements as 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

INSISEIMMISH EMENNIMENIMINIM 
Parraguirre V Cherry 

3 

MEE ' 

excited utterances because they were made shortly after perceiving an 

exciting event while the declarant was under the stress of the event. See 

NRS 51.095; Rowland v. State, 118 Nev. 31, 42-43, 39 P.3d 114, 121 

(2002). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 

admitting the statements. 

Having considered Green's claims and concluded that they 

lack merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge 

Elko County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Elko County District Attorney 

Elko County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
### subpart 4—gun possession

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 114–95, title IV, §4001(a)(2)(A)–(C), title VIII, §8001(a), (b)(1), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1966, 2088, 2089, redesignated subpart 3 (§7151) of part A of subchapter IV of this chapter as subpart 4 of part F of this subchapter.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.4

                           THE SPORTSMAN'S GUIDE, INC.

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         WHEREAS, The Sportsman's Guide, Inc. (the "Company") intends to file
with the Securities and Exchange Commission its Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended January 3, 1999.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned in his capacity as a director of the
Company hereby appoints Gary Olen, Gregory R. Binkley and Charles B. Lingen, or
any one of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full
power of substitution and resubstitution, to execute in his name, place and
stead, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
January 3, 1999 (including any amendment to such report) and any and all other
instruments necessary or incidental in connection therewith, and to file the
same with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said attorney shall have full
power and authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the
undersigned, in the aforesaid capacity, to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do in person. The undersigned hereby ratifies and
approves the acts of said attorney.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument this
11th day of February, 1999.




                                                              WILLIAM T. SENA
                                                              William T. Sena
###### Editorial Note on Part 27

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 27 appear by T.D. ATF-474, 67 FR 11231, Mar. 13, 2002, and T.D. ATF-479, 67 FR 30799, May 8, 2002.

#### § 27.252 Meaning of terms.

When used in this subpart and in forms prescribed under this subpart, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms have the meaning ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form include the singular, and vice versa.

*CBMA.* The Craft Beverage Modernization Act provisions (sections 13801-13808) of the law commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 115-97), as amended.

*CBMA importer refund claims system.* The electronic system established by TTB for the collection and review of claims for refund of internal revenue tax authorized under § 27.264. The CBMA importer refund claim system is available at *https://www.TTB.gov.*

*CBMA tax benefits.* The reduced tax rates or tax credits made available under CBMA at 26 U.S.C. 5001(c)(1) (distilled spirits), 5041(c)(1) (wine), and 5051(a)(1) (beer), and made assignable to importers by foreign distilled spirits operations, wineries, and brewers pursuant to sections 5001(c)(3), 5041(c)(6), and 5051(a)(4), respectively.

*Foreign producer.* A foreign distilled spirits operation, wine producer, or brewer.

*Foreign Producer ID.* The identification number issued to a foreign producer registered with TTB under § 27.254.

*Foreign producer registration and assignment system.* The electronic system established by TTB for the collection of information related to the registration of a foreign producer under §§ 27.254 through 27.260 and the assignment of CBMA tax benefits by such foreign producer under § 27.262. The foreign producer registration and assignment system is available at *https://www.TTB.gov.*
#### Joanna Smith, Respondent, v. Bridget M. Smith, as Administratrix, etc., Impleaded with Hugh W. Feenan and Stephen Feenan, Appellants.

Motion granted.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,901.28

 1,900.89

 1,901.41

 1,900.98

 1,900.67

 1,901.19

 1,900.90

 1,901.71

 1,900.84

 1,901.54

 1,901.76

 1,901.46

 1,901.31

 1,901.43

 1,901.42

 1,901.10

 1,901.43

 1,901.44

 1,901.68

 1,901.61

 1,901.51

 1,901.69

 1,901.45

 1,901.51

 1,901.56

 1,901.70

 1,901.64

 1,901.65

 1,901.49

 1,901.53

 1,901.54

 14,120

 13,830

 14,218

 13,896

 13,668

 14,053

 13,837

 14,442

 13,793

 14,315

 14,479

 14,255

 14,143

 14,233

 14,225

 13,986

 14,233

 14,240

 14,420

 14,367

 14,292

 14,427

 14,248

 14,292

 14,330

 14,435

 14,390

 14,397

 14,278

 14,307

 14,315

STORAGE

-38

-290

+388

-322

-228

+385

-216

+605

-649

+522

+164

-224

-112

+90

-8

-239

+247

+7

+180

-53

-75

+135

-179

+44

+38

+105

-45

+7

-119

+29

+8

CHANGE

304

390

802

637

462

790

493

754

293

678

807

211

296

618

520

303

463

344

473

391

400

487

342

400

372

509

332

358

268

334

315

INFLOW

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

POWER

 156

 157

 160

 165

 162

 163

 163

 168

 168

 166

 164

 166

 165

 170

 174

 177

 174

 176

 176

 176

 174

 176

 175

 184

 183

 167

 167

 167

 163

 140

 140

SPILL

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

OUTLETS

 2

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

C.F.S.

 .07

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .06

 .02

 .00

 .02

 .05

 .02

 .00

 .01

 .02

 .02

 .02

 .05

 .05

 .00

 .02

 .02

 .03

 .03

 .06

 .02

 .00

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2017 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 3, 2017

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +157 14,146 3,410 1,240 5,182 9 .60

ACRE-FEET +157 28,059 6,764 2,460 10,278 18

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES FISH RELEASE.

(2) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM PAN AT TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 6,764

TOTAL RIVER 19,502 27,878

 14,158

 8,376

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 15

 229

 296

 484

 265

 283

 289

 131

 302

 99

 409

 8

 37

 253

 199

 96

 14

 14

 56

 92

 114

 92

 106

 44

 20

 139

 37

 36

 14

 29

 21

 4,223

 8,376

Table 6
EXHIBIT 8.1


                           SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES


         The following is a list of all of Koor Industries Ltd.'s significant
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003, including the name, country of
incorporation or residence, proportion of ownership interest and, if
different, proportion of voting power held.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                              Country of        Percentage      Percentage of voting
                                            Incorporation      of ownership     power (if different
Name of Subsidiary                          or residence         interest         from ownership)
-------------------------------------       --------------     -----------      ---------------------

<S>                                           <C>                 <C>                     <C>

Koor Corporate Venture Capital                Israel             100.00%                  *
Elisra Electronic Systems Ltd.                Israel              70.00%                  *
Makhteshim-Agan Industries Ltd.               Israel              48.59%                  *
ECI Telecom Ltd.                              Israel              30.61%                  *
Telrad Networks Ltd.                          Israel             100.00%                  *
Sheraton Moriah (Israel) Hotels Ltd.          Israel              55.00%                  *
Knafaim Arkia Holdings Ltd.                   Israel              28.30%                  *
Koor Trade Ltd.                               Israel             100.00%                  *


*  Not applicable.

</TABLE>
Opinion issued December 17, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00509-CV

———————————

IN RE FREDERICK H. SCHRADER AND CONSTELLATION BRANDS, 

INC., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Frederick H. Schrader and Constellation Brands, Inc., have filed a 

petition for a writ of mandamus challenging two trial court orders: a March 18, 2020 

order denying Schrader’s “Motion to Disqualify John W. Newton III and Roach 

Newton LLP” and a June 29, 2020 order denying Constellation Brands, Inc.’s 

“Motion for Protection Regarding Apex Deposition of Constellation CEO & 

President Bill Newlands.” 
2

We deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.1 All pending motions are 

dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hightower, and Countiss.

1 The underlying case is Robert M. (Randy) Roach, Jr. v. Frederick H. Schrader and 

Constellation Brands, Inc., Cause No. 2018-59845, in the 189th District Court of 

Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Scot “Dolli” Dollinger presiding.
###### Editorial Note on Part 46

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 46 appear by T.D. ATF-457, 66 FR 32220, 32221, June 14, 2001.

#### § 46.7 Execution and filing of claim.

Claims to which this subpart is applicable must be executed on Form 2635 (5620.8) in accordance with instructions for the form. (For provisions relating to hand-carried documents, see § 70.304 of this chapter.) The claim shall set forth each ground upon which the claim is made in sufficient detail to apprise the appropriate TTB officer of the exact basis therefor. Allegations pertaining to the bearing of the ultimate burden relate to additional conditions which must be established for a claim to be allowed and are not in themselves legal grounds for allowance of a claim. There shall also be attached to the form and made a part of the claim the supporting data required by § 46.8. All evidence relied upon in support of such claim shall be clearly set forth and submitted with the claim.

[T.D. 7008, 34 FR 3672, Mar. 1, 1969. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55857, Sept. 28, 1979; T.D. ATF-251, 52 FR 19342, May 22, 1987; T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47658, Nov. 14, 1990; T.D. ATF-472, 67 FR 8880, Feb. 27, 2002]
#### § 19.308 Spirits content of chemicals produced.

All chemicals and chemical byproducts produced must be substantially free of spirits before being removed from bonded premises. The spirits content of chemicals to be removed from bonded premises must not exceed 10 percent by volume unless the appropriate TTB officer approves higher limits. A proprietor must test chemicals for spirits content and maintain a record of such tests as required by § 19.584.

(26 U.S.C. 5201)
### §3703. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 96–430, title II, §204, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1848, which required the National Afro-American History and Culture Commission to submit to appropriate committees of Congress a report containing a detailed statement of the financial transactions of the Commission and the activities undertaken by the Commission during the previous year, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 179 of House Document No. 103–7.