alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State *v.*Rocco Lotti.

January Term, 1900.

Present: Taut, C. J., Rowell, Tylee, Munson, Thompson and Watson, JJ.

Opinion filed February 12, 1900.

*Intoxicating liquor*— Sale *to a boarder*— The furnishing of intoxicating liquor by a boarding house keeper to his boarders, as a part of the meals for which they pay, is, in effect, a sale to them of so much of the liquor so furnished as they drink, and the keeping of intoxicating liquor to be so furnished is unlawful.

Indictment for selling, furnishing and giving away intoxicating liquor contrary to law. "Washington County, September •Term, 1899, *Thompson,*J., presiding. Trial by jury. Yerdict, guilty. Judgment on verdict. Exceptions by respondent.

The only exception was to the instruction recited below. The testimony to which the instruction was applicable was given by the respondent and sufficiently appears from the opinion.

The court instructed the jury that while the respondent had a right to keep wine and ale to use himself, or for the use of his wife, mother and children, and for members of his private family, that if they found that he kept such wine and ale with the intent to furnish the same to his boarders for hire — as testified by the respondent — such keeping would be in violation of law, and the jury would be warranted in returning a verdict of guilty.

*116
      *Richard A. Roar,*State’s Attorney, for the State.

*Lord & Carleton and F. L. Laird*for the respondent.

Taft, C. J.

The respondent kept a boarding house, with sixteen boarders and lodgers, and two or three boarders. At dinner and supper he furnished them with ale and wine, and they were accustomed to drink it. The boarders and lodgers paid the respondent sixty cents per day for their board and lodging. The furnishing of the ale and wine by the respondent to his boarders, as a part of their meals, was iix effect a sale to them of so much ale and wine as they drank, and the keeping of it by the respondent for that purpose was unlawful. The case is not within sec. 4462 *V.*S. providing that the words “ give away ” as used in Chap. 187 V. S. shall not apply to the giving away of liquors by a person in his private dwelling. The question was whether the transaction was a sale, not a gift, and the case was submitted upon the ground that the ale and wine were furnished for pay as a part of the meals. There was testimony to support the claim, the charge was correct, and the verdict must stand.

If a *“*person in his private dwelling ” furnishes a man his dinner, and with it, and as a part of it, intoxicating liquors, and receives pay for it, such transaction is a sale of the liquors so furnished.

*Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings and the respondent talces nothing by his exceptions. The judgment rendered upon the verdict in the County Court is affirmed,and sentence and execution ordered.*
§ 2102.13 Project eligibility criteria for placement on a Consent Calendar. With respect to submissions to the Commission for projects that meet the following criteria, the Secretary, at his/her discretion and in coordination with the Commission's staff, may place these projects on a Consent Calendar according to § 2102.14. ( a ) Additions to buildings of less than 25 percent (%) of the original structure and no more than 25,000 sq. ft.;
( b ) New construction of less than 25,000 sq. ft.;
( c ) Window replacement projects;
( d ) Cellular or other communications antenna installations or replacements;
( e ) New or replacement signs;
( f ) Cleaning, routine maintenance, repairs or replacement-in-kind of exterior finish materials;
( g ) Temporary utility or construction structures;
( h ) And does not include new physical perimeter security items.
[70 FR 49194, Aug. 23, 2005]
#### § 1179.11 Non-waiver of rights.

An employee's involuntary payment of all or any part of a debt collected under these regulations will not be construed as a waiver of any rights that employee may have under 5 U.S.C. 5514 or any other provision of contract law unless there are statutes or contract(s) to the contrary.
May	27,	2015

Page 1 VizTools LLC , 396 Washington Street, Suite 260, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481- 6209

Roland J. Boucher, Jr.

396 Washington Street

Suite 260

Wellesley Hills, MA 02481-6209

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Letter to accompany Certificate from State of Massachusetts Certifying 

organization of VizTools L.L.C. on February 24, 2012.

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The sole Members of VizTools L.L.C. are Roland J. Boucher and Dolores E. Boucher. 

Roland J. Boucher and Dolores E. Boucher are both natural born citizens of the United 

States of America and they are husband and wife. Together they own 100% of VizTools 

L.L.C. There are no other members. Management of the L.L.C. is vested by the 

members.

There are no other managers, members, partners, or officers.

Sincerely, 

Roland J. Boucher, Jr.

Member

VizTools LLC. 

Enclosures:

Petitioner Supports this request with the following document:

State of Massachusetts Certification of L.L.C. of VizTools L.L.C.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Safer Medical of Montana and 

George Ackerson 

Complainants, 

v. 

City of Fort Benton, Montana and 

Chouteau County, Montana 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-12 

On February 22, 2016, Counsel for Respondent, City of Fort Benton, Montana, filed a 

Motion pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19( e), requesting an extension of time to file its Answer 

to the Complaint. 

Counsel advised that he has been dealing with a recent medical issue requiring him to be 

away from his office. Counsel further advised that he contacted Counsel for the 

Complainants and Counsel for Chouteau County, and neither Counsel objected to the 

extension of time. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints. [See, Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).) The rule provides that 

an extension of time may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and 

complete consideration of the matters before the agency. See 14 CFR § 16.11 (a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Respondent is 

hereby granted an extension to February 29, 20 16 in which to file its Answer to the 

Complaint. The Answer is now due on February 29, 2016. Complainants may file a 

Reply within ten days of the date of service of the Answer. 

~ Acting Director, Office of Airport 

Date 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 25, 2016, I caused to be emailed a true copy of the 

foregoing document to the following email addresses: 

Counsel for Complainants 

Adrian Miller 

HOLLAND & HART LLP 

aamiller@hollandhart.com 

Counsel for Respondent City 

Brian Lilletvedt 

BOSCH, KUHR, DUGDALE, MARTIN, & KAZE, PLLP 

blilletvedt@bkdlaw.org 

Counsel for Respondent County 

Mitchell A. Young 

MONT ANA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

Defense Services 

myoung@mtcounties.org 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (AC0-1 00) 

- Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
§ 264.10 Must States do computer matching of data records under IEVS to verify recipient information? ( a ) Pursuant to section 1137 of the Act and subject to paragraph (a)(2) of that section, States must meet the requirements of IEVS and request the following information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the State Wage Information Collections Agency (SWICA), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS): ( 1 ) IRS unearned income;
( 2 ) SWICA employer quarterly reports of income and unemployment insurance benefit payments;
( 3 ) IRS earned income maintained by SSA; and
( 4 ) Immigration status information maintained by the INS.
( b ) The requirements at §§ 205.51 through 205.60 of this chapter also apply to the TANF IEVS requirement.
[64 FR 17896, Apr. 12, 1999; 64 FR 40292, July 26, 1999]
§ 309.80 What safeguarding procedures must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D plan? A Tribe or Tribal organization must include in its Tribal IV-D plan safeguarding provisions in accordance with this section: ( a ) Procedures under which the use or disclosure of personal information received by or maintained by the Tribal IV-D agency is limited to purposes directly connected with the administration of the Tribal IV-D program, or titles IV-A and XIX with the administration of other programs or purposes prescribed by the Secretary in regulations.
( b ) Procedures for safeguards that are applicable to all confidential information handled by the Tribal IV-D agency and that are designed to protect the privacy rights of the parties, including: ( 1 ) Safeguards against unauthorized use or disclosure of information relating to proceedings or actions to establish paternity, or to establish, modify or enforce support;
( 2 ) Prohibitions against the release of information on the whereabouts of one party or the child to another party against whom a protective order with respect to the former party or the child has been entered;
( 3 ) Prohibitions against the release of information on the whereabouts of one party or the child to another person if the Tribe has reason to believe that the release of the information to that person may result in physical or emotional harm to the party or child; and
( 4 ) Procedures in accordance with any specific safeguarding regulations applicable to Tribal IV-D programs promulgated by the Secretary.
( c ) Procedures under which sanctions must be imposed for the unauthorized use or disclosure of information covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WAYNE MICHAEL WEBBER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 282 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of May, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 170
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart E of part 170 appear at 80 FR 62755, Oct. 16, 2015.

§ 170.599 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Department of Health and Human Services must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, call ahead to arrange for inspection at 202-690-7151, and is available from the source listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) International Organization for Standardization, Case postale 56, CH·1211, Geneve 20, Switzerland, telephone +41-22-749-01-11, *http://www.iso.org .* ( 1 ) ISO/IEC GUIDE 65:1996—General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product Certification Systems (First Edition), 1996, “ISO/IEC Guide 65,” IBR approved for § 170.503.
( 2 ) ISO/IEC 17011:2004 Conformity Assessment—General Requirements for Accreditation Bodies Accrediting Conformity Assessment Bodies (Corrected Version), February 15, 2005, “ISO/IEC 17011,” IBR approved for § 170.503.
( 3 ) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E)—General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories (Second Edition), 2005-05-15, “ISO/IEC 17025,” IBR approved for §§ 170.520(b) and 170.524(a).
( 4 ) ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E)—General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories (Third Edition), 2017-11, “ISO/IEC 17025,” IBR approved for §§ 170.520(b), and 170.524(a).
( 5 ) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E)—Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services (First Edition), 2012, “ISO/IEC 17065,” IBR approved for §§ 170.503 and 170.523(a).
[81 FR 72471, Oct. 19, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 25955, May 1, 2020]
To: Kavita K. Vaidyanathan, U.S. DOE Office of General Counsel

From: Bill Fay, Energy Efficient Codes Coalition

Date: April 19, 2013

Re: April 18, 2013 meeting between DOE and EECC

Ms. Vaidyanathan,

Per your request, I have summarized below the meeting that took place between representatives

of the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (DOE) and representatives of the Energy Efficient

Codes Coalition (EECC) on April 18, 2013.

At that meeting, DOE explained the process it has followed for develo ping DOE proposals to

modify the 2015 International Codes and the process for collecting public comments on these

proposals

. DOE also clarified the scope of its participation in the upcoming ICC Code

Development Process. EECC discussed its general approa ch to the ICC process and the

upcoming hearings.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Bill Fay
T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-13

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

IVAN AND KARENZA A. MIROSEVIC, Petitioners v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 11125-03S. Filed February 15, 2005.

Ivan Mirosevic and Karenza A. Mirosevic, pro sese. William J. Gregg , for respondent.

LARO, Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority. Subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as applicable to 2000, Rule references are to the-2-

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. We decide this case without trial. See Rule 122. Petitioners petitioned the Court to redetermine a $19,728 deficiency in their 2000 Federal income tax and a $4,608 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). Following concessions by both parties, the sole issue left to decide is whether petitioners’ 2000 taxable income includes $88,885 of pension income not otherwise included in that taxable income. We hold it does. Background The facts in this background section are obtained from the parties’ stipulation of facts and the exhibits submitted therewith. Petitioners are cash method taxpayers who resided in Croatia when their petition was filed with this Court. Petitioners filed a joint 2000 Federal income tax return on which they reported the following items of income realized by them during 2000: Wages $5,209 Taxable interest 126 Taxable pension 11,716 17,051 Petitioners reported as to the taxable pension income that petitioner Ivan Mirosevic (Mirosevic) had received $117,164 of pension payments during that year but that only $11,716 of those payments was taxable. During 2000, Mirosevic received $100,601-3-

of pension payments. The $117,164 reported by petitioners for 2000 was received in 1999. Discussion Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report $88,885 of pension income for 2000; i.e., the difference between the reported amount of $11,716 and the $100,601 received by Mirosevic during 2000. Petitioners concede that this determination is correct, and they make no argument that they are not liable for Federal income taxes payable on the $88,885. In that a taxpayer’s gross income specifically includes income from a pension, see sec. 61(a)(11), and that petitioners have not made any claim that Mirosevic’s receipt of the $88,885 is otherwise excepted from this rule, we sustain respondent’s determination as to this issue in full. In order to reflect respondent’s concessions, Decision will be entered under Rule 155
.
§ 35.2 Administrative claim; when presented; place of filing. ( a ) For purposes of the regulations in this part, a claim shall be deemed to have been presented when the Department of Health and Human Services receives, at a place designated in paragraph (b) of this section, an executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification of an incident accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain for damage to or loss of property, for personal injury, or for death, alleged to have occurred by reason of the incident. A claim which should have been presented to the Department but which was mistakenly addressed to or filed with another Federal agency, shall be deemed to be presented to the Department as of the date that the claim is received by the Department. A claim mistakenly addressed to or filed with the Department shall forthwith be transferred to the appropriate Federal agency, if ascertainable, or returned to the claimant.
( b ) A claim presented in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section may be amended by the claimant at any time prior to final action by the Department Claims Officer or prior to the exercise of the claimant's option to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a). Amendments shall be submitted in writing and signed by the claimant or his duly authorized agent or legal representative. Upon the timely filing of an amendment to a pending claim, the Department shall have 6 months in which to make a final disposition of the claim as amended and the claimant's option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) shall not accrue until 6 months after the filing of an amendment.
( c ) Forms may be obtained and claims may be filed, with the office, local, regional, or headquarters, of the constituent organization having jurisdiction over the employee involved in the accident or incident, or with the Department of Health and Human Services Claims Officer, Washington, DC 20201.
[32 FR 14101, Oct. 11, 1967, as amended at 35 FR 4517, Mar. 13, 1970]
#### Blanchard v. Western Union Telegraph Company.

*Nuisance—telegraph cable in ri/oer—Negligeiice.*

A telegraph company laid a wire cable across the channel of a river so that it rubbed against the keels of vessels, but obstructed no vessels, although a great number, passed over, except one of plaintiff's, which was injured *776thereby. Plaintiff’s boat had several times previous to the injury passed over the cable which had caught in the keel. *Held*(per Boardmah, J., and Miller, P. J., Bocees, J., dissenting), that the cable was not a nuisance, and that plaintiff was negligent and could not recover for the injury to his vessel.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon the decision of the court in favor of the plaintiff in a trial without a jury. The action was brought by John L. Blanchard and others to recover for damages done to the plaintiff’s boat by the telegraph cable of defendants lying across the channel of the river on the line of the railroad bridge at Albany.

*George W. Soren,*for appellant.

*Esek*Cowen, for respondents.

Bockes, J., wrote for affirmance.

Boardman, J.,

wrote a brief opinion in favor of reversal upon the grounds mentioned in the head-note. Milleb, P. J., concurred with Boabdmae, J.

*Judgment reversed and new trial granted.*
Business Office: 

1320 Brookwood Dr. 

Little Rock AR 72202 

T- 800.413.4445 

F- 866-839-8595 

www.vdci.net 

Vector Disease Control International LLC 

···-'·~\ 

Date: 4 APR 2013 

To: Department of Transportation ..... ~"; 

u 

From Vector Disease Control International, LLC 

Subject: Dump exception extension Docket Number FAA-2011-0660 

Vector Diseases Control International, LLC would like to request an extension of the 

Dump exemption that we now hold. The operation has not changed and will continue 

as before. 

Thanks 

'UA~w?·11·~--'--- 1 tams 

Manager Aerial Division Vector Disease Control International, LLC 

MALCOM WILLIAMS 

Manager Aerial Division/Chief Pilot 

Vector Disease Control International, LLC 

mwilliams@vdci.net 

PH 318-372-4073 
Date: 3/29/2013 

Exemption No: 10369 from 14 CFR (FAR Section)- Part 

137.53 (c)(2) 

will expire on 9/30/2013. If appropriate, please submit 

your request to extend this exemption (including the 

docket number FAA-2011-0660) within 30 days ofthe 

date of this notice. Otherwise, the FAA may not be able 

to process your request ·for extension before the 

expiration date. You may either submit your request 

electronically through the internet using the Docket 

Management System web site at: 

http://Regulations.gov/ or mail your request to: 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building ground floor, 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Submission to other locations may delay processing. 

Any request for extension must meet the 

requirements of 14 CFR part 11. If you have already 

requested an extension for this exemption or no longer 

f ~: r ~- _, -.· 

::-.· 

e:: 

Malcom Williams 

Manager Aerial Division Chief Pilot 

Vector Disease Control International, 

LLC. •--~ 

1320 Brookwood Dr 

Little Rock, AR 

72202 

need this exemption, please ignore this notice. .. • I l .. . . .... · .. · · · .. 1

. · · · 111"'11 II" 'JuiJ J•ljllfiJ•pJIJ'Jilu;hppJJ•IIJ 11t'l'i'f