alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sale of Switch-Blades

March 26, *1958.*

Frank P. Lawley, Jr., Deputy Attorney General,

We are in receipt of your communication requesting advice as to whether the sale of certain knives violates section 419 of The Penal Code of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, as added by the Act of April 4,1956, P. L. 1382,18 PS §4419. This section provides:

> “Whoever sells, dispenses, gives or delivers or offers or exposes for sale any knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which can be exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon the conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or undergo imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.”

The knives in question, we are informed, are of a type resembling an ordinary pocket knife, that is, when not in use the blade of the knife is folded into the handle. The knife is manufactured in Germany and “the blade is 4% inches long and' 1 inch wide, con*406cealed in a handle and released by the pushing of a button and flipping the wrist. The blade may also be released by gravity and when extended may be locked in place by releasing pressure on the button”.

The crux of the problem here presented is whether, after pushing a button, the blade is exposed in an “automatic way” when either by operation of gravity or a “flip of the wrist” the blade is fixed in an open position for use. In the case of W. H. Coe Mfg. Co. v. American Roll Gold Leaf Co., 199 Fed. 435 (D. C. R. I. 1912), the court said, at page 438:

> “The word ‘automatically’ may properly be applied to mechanism which is hand-actuated, as well as to mechanism which is actuated by other mechanism. It may mean ‘self-regulating,’ as well as self-moving. The operator may do something, and the machine may do the rest. So far as the mechanism does what the operator himself was obliged to do in the prior art, so far as machine parts act in accordance with the law of their organization, and do what otherwise the operator must do himself, so far the word ‘automatically’ may be properly applied.”

Applying the principle of the above quoted case to the instant factual situation, we think it clear that this knife, although hand-actuated, nevertheless operates in an automatic way. The person using the knife pushes the button and the weight of the blade, either by gravity or by motion given to it by the flip of the wrist, “automatically” extends to an open position where it is locked upon the release of pressure on the push button.

We are, therefore, of the opinion and you are accordingly advised that the sale of knives of the type above described violates section 419 of The Penal Code of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, as added by the Act of April 4, 1956, P. L. 1382.
#### §§ 102.122-102.123 [Reserved]
AFS-13-301-E

May 13, 2013

 Exemption No. 130I

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9409

Maj. Alan W. Myrick

Chief, Aircrew Procedures

Department of the Air Force

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

Dear Maj. Myrick:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 130, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the 

conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

On March 20, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

the U.S. Air Force (USAF) for an extension of Exemption No. 130, as amended. That 

exemption from § 91.159 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows the USAF to 

operate its U-2 aircraft under visual flight rules at or above flight level 600 without 

maintaining the appropriate cruising altitudes as prescribed by § 91.159.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the USAF.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 130, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. § 40109, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition. Notwithstanding the provisions of the exemption, the 

pilot of an aircraft engaged in the above operations is not relieved of the responsibility to see 

and avoid other aircraft as required by other provisions of the regulations.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 130, as amended, to

September 30, 2016, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight Standard 

Service
Editorial Note on Part 294
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 294 appear at 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 294.81 Local traffic prohibited. ( a ) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section or § 294.60, a registrant shall not carry passengers, cargo, or mail between two or more United States points for compensation or hire.
( b ) A registrant may grant stopover privileges at any point or points in the United States to passengers and their accompanied baggage as part of a single continuous operation to or from Canada.
[ER-1257, 46 FR 52591, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended by Doc. No. 2006-25691, 71 FR 49347, Aug. 23, 2006]
§ 1471.1010 Suspending official. ( a ) *Suspending official* means an agency official who is authorized to impose suspension. The suspending official is either: ( 1 ) The agency head; or
( 2 ) An official designated by the agency head.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### STAHL v WOODMAN

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2144,

Decided Jan 24, 1929

Wm H McLellan, Toledo, for Stahl.

Deeds & Cole, Toledo, for Woodman.

RICHARDS, J

This court held when the case was first here, that a line or rein being used to guide a horse is a simple tool or appliance, and hence specifically excepted from the Norris Act, Sec. 6245, G. C., and reached the conclusion that the petition did not state a good cause of action. The pleadings were not amended after the case was returned to the trial court.

It is urged that under the decision in New York Central R. R. Co. vs. Lukane, rendered by the Court of Appeals in Cuyahoea County, Law Bulletin, September 24, 1928, the petition states a good cause of action. We are entirely in accord with the decision reached in the above cited case. The defects on which reliance was placed in that case are recited in the opinion of the court, by Vickery, J, as follows:

> “The block slipped out of place because perhaps, of the uneveness of the floor as he alleges, and he alleges there were holes or uneven places in the floor and that the floor was covered with grease and that the block was greasy and that it slipped and threw him to the floor.”

This describes a greasy, uneven floor which is a defect in the “ways” and “plant” of the company and caused the block to tilt, resulting in injury to plaintiff, and is embraced within the section above cited, and brought, the case clearly within that statute, while the case at bar, being that of a “simple tool” is expressly excluded from the benefits of the act.

We reach this conclusion without giving consideration to the suggestion that the previous decision made by this court became the law of the case.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
#### § 1470.35 Subawards to debarred and suspended parties.

Grantees and subgrantees must not make any award or permit any award (subgrant or contract) at any tier to any party which is debarred or suspended or is otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.”
§ 93.57 General rules: All segments. ( a ) Each person operating an aircraft to, from, or on an airport within the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area shall operate that aircraft according to the rules set forth in this section and §§ 93.59, 93.61, 93.63, 93.65, 93.67, or 93.68 as applicable, unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC.
( b ) Each person operating an airplane within the Anchorage, Alaska Terminal Area shall conform to the flow of traffic depicted on the appropriate aeronautical charts.
( c ) Each person operating a helicopter shall operate it in a manner so as to avoid the flow of airplanes.
( d ) Except as provided in § 93.65 (d) and (e), and § 93.67(b), each person operating an aircraft in the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area shall operate that aircraft only within the designated segment containing the arrival or departure airport.
( e ) Except as provided in §§ 93.63(d) and 93.67(b), each person operating an aircraft in the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area shall maintain two-way radio communications with the ATCT serving the segment containing the arrival or departure airport.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of-- Molter Corporation Under Contract No. N40083-09-D-0032 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60442

Steven J. Koprince, Esq. Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq.

Koprince Law LLC Lawrence, KS Ronald J. Borro, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Nicole R. Best, Esq. D'Ontae D. Sylvertooth, Esq.

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 8 February 2018

KEifrHD. WOODROW Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 60442, Appeal ofMolter Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
[No. 26205-3-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2002.]

#### Don Hensley, et al., *Appellants,*v. The City of Longview, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 99-2-01619-7, Richard A. Strophy, J., entered June 23,2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and Houghton, J.
§ 60.17 Previously qualified FSTDs. ( a ) Unless otherwise specified by an FSTD Directive, further referenced in the applicable QPS, or as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, an FSTD qualified before May 31, 2016 will retain its qualification basis as long as it continues to meet the standards, including the objective test results recorded in the MQTG and subjective tests, under which it was originally evaluated, regardless of sponsor. The sponsor of such an FSTD must comply with the other applicable provisions of this part.
( b ) For each FSTD qualified before May 30, 2008, no sponsor may use or allow the use of or offer the use of such an FSTD after May 30, 2014 for flight crewmember training, evaluation or flight experience to meet any of the requirements of this chapter, unless that FSTD has been issued a Statement of Qualification, including the Configuration List and the List of Qualified Tasks in accordance with the procedures set out in the applicable QPS.
( c ) If the FSTD qualification is lost under § 60.27 and— ( i ) Restored under § 60.27 in less than (2) years, then the qualification basis (in terms of objective tests and subjective tests) for the re-qualification will be those against which the FSTD was originally evaluated and qualified.
( ii ) Not restored under § 60.27 for two (2) years or more, then the qualification basis (in terms of objective tests and subjective tests) for the re-qualification will be those standards in effect and current at the time of re-qualification application.
( d ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, any change in FSTD qualification level initiated on or after May 30, 2008 requires an evaluation for initial qualification in accordance with this part.
( e ) A sponsor may request that an FSTD be permanently downgraded. In such a case, the responsible Flight Standards office may downgrade a qualified FSTD without requiring and without conducting an initial evaluation for the new qualification level. Subsequent continuing qualification evaluations will use the existing MQTG, modified as necessary to reflect the new qualification level.
( f ) When the sponsor has appropriate validation data available and receives approval from the responsible Flight Standards office, the sponsor may adopt tests and associated tolerances described in the current qualification standards as the tests and tolerances applicable for the continuing qualification of a previously qualified FSTD. The updated test(s) and tolerance(s) must be made a permanent part of the MQTG.
[Doc. No. FAA-2002-12461, 71 FR 63426, Oct. 30, 2006; Amdt. 60-2, 72 FR 59599, Oct. 22, 2007, as amended by Docket FAA-2014-0391, Amdt. 60-4, 81 FR 18218, Mar. 30, 2016; Docket No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. No. 60-7, 87 FR 75711, Dec. 9, 2022]
#### Joseph A. Broderick, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Robert Adamson et al., Defendants. Leo Doreman, Respondent, *v.*Frank S. Demarest, Appellant.

Argued March 8, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*629
      *Joseph Otis*for appellant.

*Walter H. Merritt*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4674 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to clarify that drugs and 

biologicals used for medication-assisted treatment under Medicaid are 

subject to the requirements of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Ms. SMITH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to clarify 

that drugs and biologicals used for medication-assisted 

treatment under Medicaid are subject to the requirements of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Med5 icaid Coverage of MAT Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4674 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION IN THE MEDICAID DRUG REBATE PRO2 GRAM OF COVERED OUTPATIENT DRUGS 

3 USED FOR MEDICATION-ASSISTED TREAT4 MENT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905 of the Social Secu6 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (29) of subsection (a)— 

8 (A) by moving the margin of such para9 graph 2 ems to the right; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘subject to paragraph (2)’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘subject to paragraphs (2) and 

12 (3)’’; and 

13 (2) in subsection (ee), by adding at the end the 

14 following: 

15 ‘‘(3) APPLICATION OF REBATE REQUIRE16 MENTS.—The requirements of section 1927 shall 

17 apply to any drug or biological product described in 

18 paragraph (1)(A) that is— 

19 ‘‘(A) furnished as medical assistance in ac20 cordance with subsection (a)(29) and section 

21 1902(a)(10)(A); and 

22 ‘‘(B) a covered outpatient drug (as defined 

23 in section 1927(k), except that, in applying 

24 paragraph (2)(A) of such section to a drug de25 scribed in paragraph (1)(A), such drug shall be 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4674 IS

1 deemed a prescribed drug for purposes of sub2 section (a)(12)).’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1927(d)(7) 

4 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r–8(d)(7)) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(D) Drugs and biological products de8 scribed in subsection (ee)(1)(A) of section 1905 

9 that are furnished as medical assistance in ac10 cordance with subsection (a)(29) of such section 

11 and section 1902(a)(10)(A).’’. 

12 (c) RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amend13 ments made by this section shall take effect as if included 

14 in the enactment of section 1006(b) of the SUPPORT for 

15 Patients and Communities Act (Public Law 115–271; 132 

16 Stat. 3914). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4527 

To maintain prompt and reliable postal services during the COVID–19 health 

emergency, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 13, 2020 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To maintain prompt and reliable postal services during the 

COVID–19 health emergency, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Delivering for America 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROMPT AND RELIABLE POSTAL SERVICES DURING 

7 COVID–19 PANDEMIC. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

9 (1) the term ‘‘COVID–19 public health emer10 gency’’ means the public health emergency declared 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4527 IS

1 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

2 under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020, with respect 

4 to COVID–19, including any renewal of that dec5 laration; and 

6 (2) the term ‘‘Postal Service’’ means the United 

7 States Postal Service. 

8 (b) REQUIREMENT.—During the period beginning on 

9 the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the last 

10 day of the COVID–19 public health emergency or January 

11 1, 2021, whichever is later, the Postal Service may not 

12 implement or approve any change to the operations of the 

13 Postal Service within the statutory discretion of the Postal 

14 Service, or to the level of service provided by the Postal 

15 Service, relative to the operations and level of service, re16 spectively, in effect on January 1, 2020, that would im17 pede prompt, reliable, and efficient services, including any 

18 of the following changes: 

19 (1) Any change in the nature of postal services 

20 that will generally affect service on a nationwide or 

21 substantially nationwide basis. 

22 (2) Any revision of service standards. 

23 (3) Any closure or consolidation, or reduction of 

24 operating hours, of any post office. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4527 IS

1 (4) Any prohibition on payment of overtime pay 

2 to officers or employees of the Postal Service. 

3 (5) Any change that would prevent the Postal 

4 Service from meeting its service standards or cause 

5 a decline in measurements of performance relative to 

6 those service standards. 

7 (6) Any change that would have the effect of 

8 delaying mail, allowing for the non-delivery of mail 

9 to a delivery route, or increasing the volume of unde10 livered mail. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
March 18, 2010

Me Clint Jones or Mr. Phil Ford

Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Aircraft Directorate, ANM-100

1601 Lind Avenue, SW

Renton, WA 98057-3356

SA392NE Single AC Config

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

The Leading Edge Group, LLC (LEG) as FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) holder of

SA392NE requests FAR compliance relief and submits this Petition for Exemption (PIE) to FAA

rule making established under 14 CFR Sect. 26.47(c) & (e)(2).

LEG petitions the US Govt. for engineering task relief on a Single Configuration of SA392NE for

(1) 8727-100 aircraft, SN 20489 with LEG/pats Auxiliary Fuel System (AFS) in derelict operating

condition.

1 This SN has been scrapped.

AS> IO"3jf'-I~(fJ.

FAA (!j.

51'1J"i U.;r:' '-'t Y I ®

rN~GE GROUP, LLC

Sincerely,

~EA

Capt '.... evring, Managing Director

AirSpeed &---"

MJin ofli"ce 3425 Can1lonPoint Kirkbnd Wqshingfon 98053 MJin (425) 576-4030
ASE 100325-12 FRPE

PUBUC COMMENT

www.airspeed.us.com

March 25, 2010

Federal Register Petition for Exemption submittal for public comment:

The Leading Edge Group, LLC (LEG), as FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) holder

of SA392NE requests FAR compliance relief and submits this Petition for Exemption (P/E)

to FAA rule making established under 14 CFR Sect. 26.47(c) & (e)(2).

LEG petitions for US Govt. engineering task relief on a single tank Configuration of

SA392NE for B727-100 series aircraft, with LEG/pats Auxiliary Fuei System (AFS) in VIP

passenger cabin (LOPA) deck plans.

Boeing SNs 20489:

1. This SN is the only aircraft SN listed with the above STC installed.

2. This SN has been scrapped.

Thank you.

Karl Seuring, Managing Director

The Leading Edge Group, LLC

Kirkland, WA 98033

Corpot:Jfeoffice 3425 Can1lonPoint Kitkhnd W:Jshington 98033 MJin (425) 576-4030
|                    | /s/      TERRY G. ROUSSEL                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:      May 13, 2010 | Terry      G. RousselChief      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) ofCornerstone      Ventures, Inc., Managing Member ofCornerstone      Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member ofCornerstone      Realty Fund, LLC |
|                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                    | /s/      SHARON C. KAISER                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| Date:      May 13, 2010 | Sharon      C. KaiserChief      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) ofCornerstone      Ventures, Inc., Managing Member ofCornerstone      Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member ofCornerstone      Realty Fund,LLC  |

----
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HOLIFIELD, STEWART, and BAKER Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Joseph W. DUDLEY, Jr. Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 20 22 0016 1

_________________________

Decided: 26 October 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: Adam M. King Sentence adjudged 10 March 2022 by a general court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for twenty

- one months , forfeiture of all pay and allowances , and a dishonorable discharge

. 1

1 Appellant was credited with having served 210 days of pretrial confinement.United States v. Dudley , NMCCA No. 20 22 0016 1 Opinion of the Court

2 For Appellant: Lieutenant Daniel E. Grunert , JAGC, USN

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the rec ord, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 2 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.