alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1503.703 Civil penalty letter; referral. ( a ) *Issuance.* In a civil penalty action in which the amount in controversy exceeds the amounts set forth in § 1503.701, the Administrator will send a civil penalty letter to the person charged with a violation of a TSA requirement.
( b ) *Contents.* The civil penalty letter will contain a statement of the charges; the applicable law, rule, regulation, or order; the amount of civil penalty that the Administrator will accept in full settlement of the action or an offer to compromise the civil penalty.
( c ) *Response.* Not later than 30 days after receipt of the civil penalty letter, the person charged with a violation may present to the agency attorney any material or information in answer to the charges, either orally or in writing, that may explain, mitigate, or deny the violation or that may show extenuating circumstances. The Administrator will consider any material or information submitted in accordance with this paragraph (c) to determine whether the person is subject to a civil penalty or to determine the amount for which the Administrator will compromise the action.
( d ) *Compromise.* If the person charged with a violation offers to compromise the civil penalty action for a specific amount, that person must send payment in a form and manner acceptable to TSA for that amount to the agency, made payable to the Transportation Security Administration, or make payment electronically through *http://www.pay.gov .* The Chief Counsel or the Deputy Chief Counsel for Civil Enforcement may accept the payment or may refuse and return the payment. If the Administrator accepts the offer to compromise, the agency will send a letter to the person charged with the violation stating that the payment is accepted in full settlement of the civil penalty action and that the matter is closed.
( e ) *Referral for prosecution and collection.* If the parties cannot agree to compromise the civil penalty action or the offer to compromise is rejected and the payment submitted in compromise is returned, the Administrator may refer the civil penalty action to the United States Attorney General, or the delegate of the Attorney General, to begin proceedings in a United States district court, pursuant to the authority in 49 U.S.C. 114 or 46305 to prosecute and collect the civil penalty.
( f ) The Administrator delegates to the Chief Counsel and the Deputy Chief Counsel for Enforcement the authority to carry out any function of the Administrator described in this § 1503.703.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET

#### In re Report of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education.

1999 TERM

ORDER

This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (the “commission”) pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(l)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, the respondents herein, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 1996— 1997 reporting period.

On November 18,1998, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(1), this court issued to each respondent an order to show cause why the commission’s recommendation should not be adopted and an order so entered against the respondent. One hundred three respondents filed objections to the commission’s recommendation. Pursuant to Gov.Bar. R. X(6)(B)(2), the commission may file an answer brief to the objections within fifteen days.

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the commission may consolidate its responses to the respondents’ objections in a single answer brief that shall be filed no later than February 19,1999.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the notice and service requirements of *1461Gov.Bar R. X(6)(C) shall not apply to this order; and announcement and publication of this order by the Supreme Court Reporter in the Ohio Official Reports and the Ohio State Bar Association Report shall constitute notice to the respondents.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending June 1, 2013

|Filer                          | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------------ | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|HOMETOWN COMMUNITY BANCORP MHC | * 3A1* 3A3    | Application by Hometown Community Bancorp, MHC, Oxford, Massachusetts, a mutual bank holding company, to form a wholly-owned, mid-tier, stock bank holding company, Hometown Community Bancorp, Inc., Oxford, Massachusetts, through its acquisition of 100% of the shares of Hometown Bank, A Cooperative Bank, Webster, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                     | Not available
|Federal Register:              | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                   | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method   
|---------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | --------------
|NEEDHAM BK, NEEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS       | 339773 | 12/03/2012 | 05/02/2013     | S         | Int Sm Bank   
|STATE STREET B&TC, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS | 35301  | 01/14/2013 | 05/03/2013     | O         | Whole/Ltd Purp

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### Joseph Jack, Mary A. Jack, and Sarah J. Jack *v.*Joseph Hudnall.

1. Tenants in possession may be sued jointly in an action for trespass committed by animals kept by them in common upon the premises, although the several, animals are owned by them separately and individually.

2. “Where the finding of facts by the court fairly admits of a construction which will support the judgment, that construction will be adopted rather than a different one which would render the judgment errone-

Error to the District Court of Athens county.

This was an action by Hudnall against the plaintiffs in error, for trespasses committed by their cattle upon Hudnall’s premises. The defendants (plaintiffs in error) denied the alleged trespasses. The cause was submitted to the court, a jury being waived, and the court found the facts specially, as follows :

“ 1. That the plaintiff sustained damages to the amount of twenty dollars, by reason of the trespass of some twelve head of cattle, as in the petition set forth.

“ 2. That said three defendants lived on a farm which they owned and cultivated in common, whereon said cattle were kept.

“ 8. That the said cattle that committed the trespass were owned by the defendants.

“ 4. That there was no joint ownership in said cattle, hut that each defendant owned a part of said cattle in his or her individual right, each owning certain ones of said cattle separate from either of the others of said defendants.’

Upon this finding the court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff and the same was subsequently affirmed on proceedings in error in the District Court, and it is now sought to reverse this judgment of affirmance, and also the judgment of the Common Pleas.

*256
      *W. Meed Golden,*for plaintiff in error. -

*Grosvenor § Dana,*for defendant in error.

Welch, J.

As we understand the finding of the court,, these cattle were in the joint possession and custody of the defendants. The finding, at least, fairly admits of that construction, and under the well-known rule, it should therefore be adopted,rather than a different construction, which would render the judgment erroneous. The cattle were-“kept” upon the farm, and the three defendants owned and “cultivated” the farm “in common.” *Prima facie,*the defendants kept and cared for the cattle. in common. This being the case, we have no hesitation in saying that the court below was right in holding that the defendants were properly joined in the action.

*Judgment affirmed.*

MoIlvaine, C. J., White, Rex, and Gilmore, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Biovest International, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form
10-Q), I, Brian D. Bottjer, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: May 13, 2011



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Brian D. Bottjer                      
|Brian D. Bottjer, CPA                     
|Acting Chief Financial Officer; Controller

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
Biovest International, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
in such filing.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City of New York, Appellant and Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Lands Required for the Opening of Mount Vernon Avenue. Alfred Hutter et al., as Executors of Leopold Hutter et al., Respondents and Appellants.

*Matter of Mayor, etc., of New York (Mount Vernon Ave.),*138 App. Div. 897, affirmed.

(Argued September 26, 1910;

decided October 11, 1910.)

Cross-appeals from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 6, 1910, which modified and affirmed as modified an order of Special Term in so far as it allowed interest on certain awards made in the above entitled proceeding.

*Archibald 11. Watson, Corporation Coimsel (Theodore Connoly, Joel J. Squier*and *tí. li. Draper*of counsel), for city of New York, appellant and respondent.

*Merle I. 8t. John*for IIutter et al., respondents and appellants.

*560Order affirmed, without costs. The language of section 1001 of the charter of New York city, which limits the right to interest in regular course to the period of six months, unless within that time a demand shall be made, has no application to the period following a demand made after the expiration of six mouths, and does not forbid the allowance of interest in the latter case from the time when a proper demand is made; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Yann, Werner, Hisoook and Chase, JJ. Absent: Willard Bartlett, J.
§ 90.35-1 Standards to be used. ( a ) Where in this subchapter an item, or method of construction, or testing is required to meet the standards established by the American Bureau of Shipping, the current standards in effect at the time of construction of the vessel, or otherwise as applicable, shall be used. The current standards of other recognized classification societies may also be accepted upon approval by the Commandant.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2436 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2436

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the charitable 
    contributions deduction for food inventory, book inventory, and 
                   computer technology and equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2009

  Ms. Kosmas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the charitable 
    contributions deduction for food inventory, book inventory, and 
                   computer technology and equipment.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Charitable Goods Donation Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS DEDUCTION FOR FOOD 
              INVENTORY, BOOK INVENTORY, AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND 
              EQUIPMENT.

    (a) Contributions of Food Inventory.--Clause (iv) of section 
170(e)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
    (b) Contributions of Book Inventory to Public Schools.--Clause (iv) 
of section 170(e)(3)(D) of such Code is amended by striking ``December 
31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
    (c) Contributions of Computer Technology and Equipment for 
Educational Purposes.--Subparagraph (G) of section 170(e)(6) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
``December 31, 2010''.
                                 <all>
```
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending April 21, 2012

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending September 22, 2012

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 1542.213 Training. ( a ) Each airport operator must ensure that individuals performing security-related functions for the airport operator are briefed on the provisions of this part, Security Directives, and Information Circulars, and the security program, to the extent that such individuals need to know in order to perform their duties.
( b ) An airport operator may not authorize any individual unescorted access to the secured area or SIDA, except as provided in § 1542.5, unless that individual has successfully completed training in accordance with TSA-approved curriculum specified in the security program. This curriculum must detail the methods of instruction, provide attendees with an opportunity to ask questions, and include at least the following topics— ( 1 ) The unescorted access authority of the individual to enter and be present in various areas of the airport;
( 2 ) Control, use, and display of airport-approved access and identification media;
( 3 ) Escort and challenge procedures and the law enforcement support for these procedures;
( 4 ) Security responsibilities as specified in § 1540.105;
( 5 ) Restrictions on divulging sensitive security information as described in part 1520 of this chapter; and
( 6 ) Any other topics specified in the security program.
( c ) An airport operator may not authorize any individual unescorted access to the AOA, except as provided in § 1542.5, unless that individual has been provided information in accordance with the security program, including— ( 1 ) The unescorted access authority of the individual to enter and be present in various areas of the airport;
( 2 ) Control, use, and display of airport-approved access and identification media, if appropriate;
( 3 ) Escort and challenge procedures and the law enforcement support for these procedures, where applicable;
( 4 ) Security responsibilities as specified in § 1540.105;
( 5 ) Restrictions on divulging sensitive security information as described in part 1520 of this chapter; and
( 6 ) Any other topics specified in the security program.
( d ) Each airport operator must maintain a record of all training and information given to each individual under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for 180 days after the termination of that person's unescorted access authority.
( e ) As to persons with unescorted access to the SIDA on November 14, 2001, training on responsibility under § 1540.105 can be provided by making relevant security information available.
( f ) Training described in paragraph (c) of this section must be implemented by each airport operator not later than November 14, 2002.
§ 78.70-1 Master's responsibility. ( a ) Before loading bulk grain, or similar combustible bulk cargo, the master shall have the lighting circuits to cargo compartments in which the bulk cargo is to be loaded de-energized at the distribution panel or panel board. He shall thereafter have periodic inspections made of the panel or panel board as frequently as necessary to ascertain that the affected circuits remain de-energized while this bulk cargo remains within the vessel.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### Moses L. Marrus et al., Respondents, *v.*Louis Alterise, Appellant.

*Marrus*v. *Alterise,*129 App. Div. 922, affirmed.

(Submitted October 7, 1910;

decided October 25, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 4, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase real property.

*James A. Sheehan*for appellant.

*I. Gainslurg*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
#### Whitcher *v.*McConnell.

Part-payment of a note on Sunday, and an indorsement of it on the same day, are not evidence of a new promise to remove the bar of the statute of limitations.

A payment upon a note owned by two persons, each having a several interest in it, of the amount owned by one, will not operate as a renewal of the note in favor of the other.

Assumpsit, on a note dated March 20, 1867, payable to Mercy Whitcher, or order, and by her indorsed to the plaintiff;. Plea, the statute of limitations, and replication, a new promise. The payee had given the note to the defendant’s wife, excepting $36, which it was understood the defendant was to pay to her within six years of the suit. On Sunday the defendant gave to the payee his note for $44.64, being $36 and interest from the date of the gift, and on the same day indorsed on the note in suit $36. Subsequently, the $44.64 note was paid to Mercy Whitcher, and she indorsed the note held by the defendant’s wife to the plaintiff. The referee found for the defendant; and the question is upon the competency of the evidence upon the question of a new promise.

*Foster,*with whom were *Bingham, Mitchell 8f Batchellor,*for the defendant.

*Oarpenter,*for the plaintiff.

*471Allen, J.

The transaction by which the defendant gave a note of $44.04 to Mercy Whitcher, and indorsed $86 on the note in suit, was upon Sunday, and, being illegal, was not evidence from which a new promise could be inferred. *Clapp*v. Hale, 112 Mass. 368. The subsequent payments were voluntary payments to Mercy Whitcher, intended to be on her note of $44.64, and not on the note in suit. Nothing was paid on the plaintiff’s note. Tbe fact that tbe $44.64 note was void does not contradict tbe fact that tbe defendant paid and intended to pay that note, and is no evidence that he paid or intended to pay some other note, which at the time he did not see nor have in mind; nor was there any transaction between him and the holder in regard to the payment of the other note. The fact that the defendant paid a note which he was not obliged to pay, cannot be made to work a payment of another note, nor operate to renew it.

*Judgment for the defendant.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: tlie others concurred.