alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-11775

_____________

D. C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-00077-TJC-TEM

GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHARON K. ELLIOTT,

as Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas R. 

Elliott, deceased,

MARY ANN HOOPER,

 Defendants-Appellants,

WILLIAM ROBERT ELLIOTT,

 Defendant. 

______________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

______________

 (March 1, 2013)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-11775 Date Filed: 03/01/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM:

This appeal involves the determination of whether a farm and ranch 

insurance policy affords coverage for alleged injuries and damages resulting from 

the insured’s murder of appellants’ mother, mutilation and burning of her corpse, 

and disposition of her remains. Appellee Great American Assurance Company 

(“Great American”) brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration 

from the district court that it had no duty to defend or indemnify William Robert 

Elliott (“Elliott”) for an underlying lawsuit brought against him by his siblings in 

Florida State Court. The jury returned a verdict against Elliott and awarded 

damages in excess of $1 million. On appeal, Florida’s District Court of Appeals 

ruled Elliott was entitled to a directed verdict on the negligent infliction of 

emotional distress claim and vacated the damages awarded as to that count. The 

property damage award was $100,000 for both siblings combined. The siblings 

each currently hold a final judgment against Elliott in the amount of $284,191.00. 

We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of an insurance policy 

because it is a matter of law. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Feit Mgmt. Co., 321 F.3d 1326, 

1328 (11th Cir 2003). We also review de novo the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment. Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843, 848 (11th Cir. 2010).

Case: 12-11775 Date Filed: 03/01/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

After reviewing the record, and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Great American based upon 

its well-reasoned order filed on March 6, 2012.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-11775 Date Filed: 03/01/2013 Page: 3 of 3
#### § 2400.46 Suggestions or complaints.

Persons desiring to submit suggestions or complaints regarding the Office of Science and Technology Policy Information Security Program should do so in writing. This correspondence should be addressed to: Executive Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 20506.
#### In the Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens by Clinton County, Respondent. Valerie Miner et al., Appellants.

[833 NYS2d 715]—

Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), entered June 8, 2006, which denied respondents’ motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure against them.

On March 10, 2006, County Court issued a default judgment of foreclosure, pursuant to RPTL 1136, awarding petitioner possession of and title to respondents’ real property based on their failure to pay taxes. On March 30, 2006, respondents moved to reopen, pursuant to RPTL 1131. The court denied the motion, resulting in respondents’ appeal. Although respondents timely moved to vacate the default judgment, we affirm because they failed to proffer an excuse for their default or a meritorious defense.

RPTL 1131 states that a motion to reopen a default judgment of foreclosure may not be brought later than one month after entry of the judgment, but it does not set forth the grounds that must support such a motion. We have previously held that even though CPLR 5015 contains a longer time period in which a party must move for relief from a default judgment, the shorter time provision of RPTL 1131 applies to defaults in tax foreclosure proceedings *(see*CPLR 101; *Matter of Clinton County [Zachary],*299 AD2d 709, 710 [2002], *lvs dismissed*99 NY2d 610 [2003], 100 NY2d 574 [2003]). Notably, the one-month pe*1016riod was added to RPTL 1131 as a technical amendment and was intended merely as a timing device *(see*Mem of Div of Equalization and Assessment, Bill Jacket, L 1994, ch 532, at 5, 6, 14).

While it contains a specific timing provision, RPTL 1131 does not address the grounds for a motion to reopen a default judgment in tax foreclosure proceedings, making the grounds provisions of CPLR 5015 applicable *(see*CPLR 101). Respondents were therefore required to proffer a reasonable excuse for their default, as well as a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Guariglia v Price Chopper Operating Co., Inc.,*13 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2004]). As respondents’ motion papers failed to establish any reasonable excuse or defense, the court properly denied the motion to reopen even though it was made within one month of entry of the judgment *(see Matter of County of Herkimer [Jones],*34 AD3d 1327, 1328 [2006]).

We will not address respondents’ arguments concerning alleged defects in the notice, as these arguments were raised for the first time in their reply brief on appeal *(see Matter of Deuel v Dalton,*33 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2006]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
§ 552.214 Procedures. ( a ) Any person or persons desiring to protest, picket, or engage in any other similar demonstrations on Aberdeen Proving Ground must submit a written request to the Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Aberdeen Proving Ground, ATTN: STEAP-CO, 2201 Aberdeen Boulevard, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005-5001. The request must be received at least 30 calendar days prior to the demonstration, and it must include the following: ( 1 ) Name, address, and telephone number of the sponsoring person or organization. (If it is an organization, include the name of the point of contact.)
( 2 ) Purpose of the event.
( 3 ) Number of personnel expected to attend.
( 4 ) Proposed date, time, location and duration of the event.
( 5 ) Proposed means of transportation to and from APG.
( 6 ) Proposed means of providing security, sanitary services and related ancillary services to the participants.
( b ) Based on the Commander's concerns for discipline, mission accomplishment, protection of property, and the safeguarding of the health, morale, and welfare of the APG community, the Commander will determine whether to grant the request and, if granted, any limitations as to where and when it will take place.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.16

                               UNANIMOUS CONSENT
                 OF THE STOCK OPTION AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
                          OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
                              HARCOR ENERGY, INC.
                          IN LIEU OF A SPECIAL MEETING


  The undersigned, being all of the members of the Stock Option and Compensation
Committee (the "Committee") of the Board of Directors of HarCor Energy, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), acting pursuant to Section 141(f) of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, do hereby consent to,
adopt and approve the following:

  WHEREAS, and pursuant to that Unanimous Consent dated June 30, 1994 (copy
attached), this Committee has granted to certain officers of the Corporation
shares of Common Stock of the Corporation as follows:


                Name              Amount of Shares
                ----              ----------------

            Mark G. Harrington              23,750
            Francis H. Roth                 15,625
            Gary S. Peck                    12,500
            Albert J. McMullin               8,500
and


  WHEREAS,  said issued shares of Common Stock are subject to the restrictions
set forth in that Unanimous Consent and related restricted stock agreements; and

  WHEREAS, said shares of Common Stock were initially restricted from being
transferred until April 28, 1997 (the "Transfer Date", and as also stated on
stock certificates' legend bearing this restriction); and
<PAGE>

  WHEREAS, the purpose of the initial restriction period (three years) was to
encourage the continued service of the Company's Key Officers; and

  WHEREAS, the initial restriction period has, for most intents and purposes,
transpired; and

  WHEREAS, the Key Officers have demonstrated their continued commitment to the
service of the Company; and

  WHEREAS, the Committee has discussed at length the acceleration of the
Transfer Date.

  NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Committee hereby deems the
Transfer Date to be January 15, 1997 in lieu of April 28, 1997 as originally
deemed;

  AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proper officers of the Corporation are
hereby authorized and directed to deliver said share certificates free of
restrictive legend, to those officers heretofore granted unto.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Consent effective as of
the 15__ of January, 1997.

                                 /s/ Vinod K. Dar
                                 --------------------------------------
                                 Vinod K. Dar

                                 /s/ Herbert Oakes
                                 --------------------------------------
                                 Herbert Oakes
§ 2002.36 Legacy materials. ( a ) Agencies must review documents created prior to November 14, 2016 and re-mark any that contain information that qualifies as CUI in accordance with the Order, this part, and the CUI Registry. When agencies do not individually re-mark legacy material that qualifies as CUI, agencies must use an alternate permitted marking method (see § 2002.20(a)(8)).
( b ) When the CUI SAO deems re-marking legacy documents to be excessively burdensome, the CUI SAO may grant a legacy material marking waiver under § 2002.38(b).
( c ) When the agency re-uses any information from legacy documents that qualifies as CUI, whether the documents have obsolete control markings or not, the agency must designate the newly-created document (or other re-use) as CUI and mark it accordingly.
|  | (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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Michael Doar                                                   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael      Doar                                                 |
| Chairman      of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |
| January      12, 2010                                             |

----
#### SPEARS v. CENTURA BANK

No. 541PA97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 397

Wake County Superior Court

Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 5 February 1998. Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to review the order of Superior Court, Wake County, allowed 5 February 1998.
§ 2002.34 Transferring records. ( a ) When feasible, agencies must decontrol records containing CUI prior to transferring them to NARA.
( b ) When an agency cannot decontrol records before transferring them to NARA, the agency must: ( 1 ) Indicate on a Transfer Request (TR) in NARA's Electronic Records Archives (ERA) or on an SF 258 paper transfer form, that the records should continue to be controlled as CUI (subject to NARA's regulations on transfer, public availability, and access; see 36 CFR parts 1235, 1250, and 1256); and
( 2 ) For hard copy transfer, do not place a CUI marking on the outside of the container.
( c ) If the agency does not indicate the status as CUI on the TR or SF 258, NARA may assume the agency decontrolled the information prior to transfer, regardless of any CUI markings on the actual records.
#### § 236.1 Purpose.

Cyber threats to contractor unclassified information systems represent an unacceptable risk of compromise of DoD information and pose an imminent threat to U.S. national security and economic security interests. This part requires all DoD contractors to rapidly report cyber incidents involving covered defense information on their covered contractor information systems or cyber incidents affecting the contractor's ability to provide operationally critical support. The part also permits eligible DoD contractors to participate in the voluntary DIB CS Program to share cyber threat information and cybersecurity best practices with DIB CS Program participants. The DIB CS Program enhances and supplements DIB CS Program participants' capabilities to safeguard DoD information that resides on, or transits, DIB unclassified information systems.

[80 FR 59584, Oct. 2, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 68317, Oct. 4, 2016; 89 FR 17747, Mar. 12, 2024]
§ 552.166 Recreational use. ( a ) Fort Lewis: ( 1 ) Individuals or organizations, military or civilian, desiring access to the Fort Lewis range complex for recreation must obtain a Fort Lewis Area Access permit, composed of HFL Form 652 and HFL Form 653. Exceptions are outlined below.
( 2 ) Exception 1: DoD ID card holders enroute to or using DPCA recreational areas listed in appendix A to this subpart need no permit other than the ID card. However, travel to and from DPCA areas is restricted to the most direct paved or improved two lane roads. DoD personnel participating in non-commercial recreational activities listed in appendix C to this subpart must have an Area Access permit.
( 3 ) Exception 2: Organizations or groups whose activity requires advanced commitment of a specific site or area, such as Scout Camporees, seasonal or one-time regional meets, and so on, must apply to the Fort Lewis DPTM, ATTN: Range Division, in writing. At least 30 days are required to process these requests. If the requested use is allowable and an appropriate area is available, DPTM may approve the request. Groups with approved land commitments will be scheduled onto the Range Complex using HFL 473. Actual commitments of land will not be made until after the Quarterly Range Scheduling Conference that covers the time period in question. Groups who need military equipment or other special support from Fort Lewis must apply in writing directly to the I Corps Public Affairs Office (PAO).
( b ) Yakima Training Center: Access to the Yakima Training Center range complex for recreation requires application in writing to the Commander, Yakima Training Center, Yakima WA 98901-9399. Camping is normally not permitted on Yakima Training Center. Exceptions may be granted by the Yakima Training Center Commander for special events.
( c ) Camp Bonneville: Access to the Camp Bonneville range complex for recreation requires a call to Range Control, telephone (206) 892-5800, the day before or the day of the activity. Access will be permitted if no military maneuver or live fire training is scheduled for the day requested.
#### Benny Goldin, Respondent, v. Reiss Manufacturing Corp., Defendant, and James King *&*Son, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment entered June 27, 1962, in favor of plaintiff, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. The cause of action as set forth in the complaint was based upon a theory of the supplying of a defective instrumentality for plaintiff’s use. At the trial the theory upon which liability was sought to be predicated was the assurance of safety concept. This was embraced within the court’s charge as given originally but, upon exception, the court admonished the jury to disregard it since this theory of liability was not pleaded or advanced in the bill of particulars. The injection of this theory by plaintiff, which remained throughout the trial, undoubtedly improperly influenced the verdict. In light of plaintiff’s version of the areeident and the accounts given by Kraus, plaintiff’s superior, and Tubridy, appellant’s foreman, the finding of defendant’s negligence, implicit in the jury’s verdict, is against the weight of the credible evidence. (Cf. *Politi*v. *Irvmar Realty Corp.,*7 A D 2d 414.) Concur - — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
#### § 536.107 Scope for international agreements claims arising in the United States.

This section sets forth procedures and responsibilities for the investigation, processing, and settlement of claims arising out of any acts or omissions of members of a foreign military force or civilian component present in the United States or a territory, commonwealth, or possession thereof under the provisions of cost sharing reciprocal international agreements which contain claims settlement provisions applicable to claims arising in the United States. Article VIII of the NATO SOFA has reciprocal provisions applying to all NATO member countries; the Partnership for Peace (PFP) Agreement has similiar provisions, as do the Singapore and Australian SOFAs.
#### § 277.1 Purpose.

This part establishes uniform policies, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for implementation of Pub. L. 99-509.
### Photogrammetric determination of surface altitude, terminus position, and ice velocity of Columbia Glacier, Alaska

By: M. F. MeierLowell A. RasmussenR. M. KrimmelR.W. OlsenDavid Frank

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1258F

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EXHIBIT 21.1


                                ROUNDY'S, INC.
                                Subsidiaries


Roundy's, Inc. has eleven wholly-owned first-tier subsidiaries, each a
Wisconsin corporation (except as otherwise noted) doing business under their
corporate names. These subsidiaries are:

Badger Assurance, Ltd. (1)                  Mega Marts, Inc.
Holt Public Storage, Inc.                   Midland Grocery of Michigan, Inc.(4)
I.T.A., Inc.                                Ropak, Inc.
Jondex Corp.                                Scot Lad Foods, Inc.
Kee Trans, Inc.                             The Copps Corporation
                                            Ultra Mart Foods, Inc.

Four Wisconsin corporations doing business under their corporate names are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Ropak, Inc. These corporations are:

Insurance Planners, Inc.                                Rindt Enterprises, Inc.
Pick 'n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc.                      Shop-Rite, Inc.

One Wisconsin corporation doing business under its assumed name of RBF Corp. of
Wisconsin is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Copps Corporation. The corporation
is:

RBF Corp.

Two corporations doing business under their corporate names are wholly- owned
subsidiaries of Scot Lad Foods, Inc. These corporations are:

Scot Lad-Lima, Inc.(2)                                  Cardinal Foods, Inc.(3)

One Corporation doing business under its corporate name is a subsidiary of Ultra
Mart Foods, Inc. The corporation is:

Everix Bakery, LLC (6)

One corporation doing business under its corporate name is a subsidiary of
Shop-Rite, Inc. The corporation is:

The Midland Grocery Company(2)(5)

One corporation doing business under its corporate name is a 50% owned
subsidiary of Jondex Corp. The corporation is:

Clintonville Land Co., LLC (6)

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


1) A Bermuda corporation.            (4) A Michigan corporation.
(2) An Ohio corporation.             (5) Partially owned by Cardinal Foods, Inc.
(3) A Delaware corporation.          (6) A Wisconsin limited liability company.
### SUBCHAPTER III—STOCKYARDS AND STOCKYARD DEALERS
#### § 37.665 Must I require nonprofit participants to have periodic audits?

Yes, expenditure-based TIAs are assistance instruments subject to the Single Audit Act (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507), so nonprofit participants are subject to their usual requirements under that Act, as implemented by subpart F of 2 CFR part 200. Specifically, the requirements are the same as those in subpart E of 2 CFR part 1128 for grants and cooperative agreements to institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, States, local governments, and Indian tribes. Note that those requirements also apply to Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and other Government-owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) facilities administered by nonprofit organizations, because nonprofit FFRDCs and GOCOs are subject to the Single Audit Act.

[85 FR 51246, Aug. 19, 2020]
RIN 2060-AR62 Higgins, Cortney to: RobertJ Wayland 11/16/2012 01:41 PM Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, Bill Maxwell, Karen Thundiyil

Hi all, We have concluded review of RIN 2060-AR62, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.”

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards, Cortney