Vinick v. United States
205 F.3d 1
1st Cir.
2000
Check Treatment
Docket

ARNOLD W. VINICK, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 98-2143

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

March 8, 2000

Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 8, 2000, is amended as follows:

Page 20, line 9: Add a new footnote number “8” after the period ending the sentence: “Responsibility during one period does not equate to responsibility in all periods.”8

The text for the new footnote 8 is as follows: “We do not mean to suggest that in all § 6672 cases a district court is precluded from considering evidence from outside the quarters in question. For example, behavior in one quarter, depending on the circumstances, could cast light on one‘s status as a responsible person in other quarters. Because one‘s function and status can change between quarters, however, it would be erroneous based solely on evidence from one quarter automatically to conclude that a person is responsible in another quarter.”

Alter the subsequent footnotes’ numbering accordingly.

Notes

8
We do not mean to suggest that in all § 6672 cases a district court is precluded from considering evidence from outside the quarters in question. For example, behavior in one quarter, depending on the circumstances, could cast light on one‘s status as a responsible person in other quarters. Because one‘s function and status can change between quarters, however, it would be erroneous based solely on evidence from one quarter automatically to conclude that a person is responsible in another quarter.