alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 779.387 “Restaurant” exemption under section 13(b) (8). ( a ) As amended in 1966, the Act, in section 13(b) (8), exempts from its overtime pay provisions “any employee employed by an establishment which is a * * * restaurant”. The term *restaurant* as used in section 13(b)(8) of the Act means an establishment which is primarily engaged in selling and serving to purchasers at retail prepared food and beverages for immediate consumption on the premises. This includes such establishments commonly known as lunch counters, refreshment stands, cafes, cafeterias, coffee shops, diners, dining rooms, lunch rooms, or tea rooms. The term “restaurant” does not include drinking establishments, such as bars or cocktail lounges, whose sales of alcoholic beverages exceed the receipts from sales of prepared foods and nonalcoholic beverages. Certain food or beverage service employees of establishments such as bars and cocktail lounges, however, may be exempt under section 13(b)(18).
( b ) Not all places where food is served for immediate consumption on the premises are “restaurant” establishments within the meaning of section 13(b)(8). Such service is sometimes provided as an incidental activity of an establishment of another kind, rather than by an establishment possessing the physical and functional characteristics of a separate place of business engaged in restaurant operations. In such event, the establishment providing the meal service is not an establishment “which is” a restaurant as section 13(b)(8) requires for exemption. Further, not every place which serves meals, even if it should qualify as a separate food service establishment, possesses the characteristics of a “restaurant.” The meals served by restaurants are characteristically priced, offered, ordered, and served for consumption by and paid for by the customer on an individual meal basis. A restaurant functions principally, and not merely incidentally, to meet the immediate needs and desires of the individual customer for refreshment at the particular time that he visits the establishment for the purpose. A separate transaction to accommodate these needs and desires takes place on the occasion of each such visit. A “restaurant”, therefore, is to be distinguished from an establishment offering meal service on a boarding or term basis or providing such service only as an incident to the operation of an enterprise of another kind and primarily to meet institutional needs for continuing meal service to persons whose continued presence is required for such operation. Accordingly, a boarding house is not a “restaurant” within the meaning of section 13(b)(8), nor are the dining facilities of a boarding school, college or university which serve its students and faculty, nor are the luncheon facilities provided for private and public day school students, nor are other institutional food service facilities providing long-term meal service to stable groups of individuals as an incident to institutional operations in a manner wholly dissimilar to the typical transactions between a restaurant and its customers.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1677

LUIS HERNANDO PEREZ, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-101-761) Submitted: February 24, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arturo Hernandez, Vienna, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Marleigh D. Dover, Isaac J. Lidsky, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Perez does not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, these claims are waived. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Luis Hernando Perez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. * In his petition for review, Perez challenges the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a decision denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Perez fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
#### § 778.112 Day rates and job rates.

If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day's work or for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He is then entitled to extra half-time pay at this rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.
File Name: 09a0630n.06

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

No. 09-5132

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ROXANNE MORAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE MIDDLE

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

/

Before: MARTIN, COLE, and KETHLEDGE; Circuit Judges.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Roxanne Moray worked for Novartis

Pharmaceuticals Corporation as a sales representative. After Novartis terminated her employment,

she sued the company alleging retaliation under Tennessee law, negligent or intentional

misrepresentation, and outrageous conduct. The district court granted Novartis’s motion for

summary judgment, finding that Moray did not point to evidence sufficient to permit a jury to find

in her favor on any of her claims.

After reviewing the record and briefs, we AFFIRM the district court’s disposition of the case

and adopt its thorough and well-reasoned opinion as our own. See Moray v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.,

2009 WL 82471 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 9, 2009).
#### § 516.12 Employees exempt from overtime pay requirements pursuant to section 13(b) (1), (2), (3), (5), (9), (10), (15), (16), (17), (20), (21), (24), (27), or (28) of the Act.

With respect to each employee exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the Act pursuant to the provisions of section 13(b) (1), (2), (3), (5), (9), (10), (15), (16), (17), (20), (21), (24), (27), or (28) of the Act, shall maintain and preserve payroll or other records, containing all the information and data required by § 516.2(a) except paragraphs (a) (6) and (9) and, in addition, information and data regarding the basis on which wages are paid (such as the monetary amount paid, expressed as earnings per hour, per day, per week, etc.).
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment in Hotels and Restaurants

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Byrne, Harriet A. (Harriet Anne), 1892-. 						*Employment in Hotels and Restaurants : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 123*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1936,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5417,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 502.43 Responsibility of the Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Upon receipt of the ARB's Notice pursuant to § 501.42 of these regulations, the Office of ALJ shall promptly forward a copy of the complete hearing record to the ARB.
#### Richard Hunt *against*Benjamin South. (a)

ON CERTIORARI.

THIS case was argued by *Ewing,*for plaintiff and *Wall*for defendant. The opinion of the court given by *Southard*J.

(a)

 See *Sanford vs. Hoover, Pen. *99. Jackson vs. Darcy, Sax. 194.*

Southard J.

The parties appeared on the return day of the summons, and the justice adjourned the cause for the usual time. After the adjournment had been made, but on the same day, the ^plaintiff filed his state of domand. On the day of trial a nonsuit was moved, because the state of demand was not filed in season, and the justice overruled the motion. In this I think he erred. The 14th section of the act, *{Bloom.*55) requires the plaintiff, on or before the return day of the summons, to deliver his copy of account or state of demand, and in default thereof to be nonsuited. In construing this act, we must not forget the object of the legislature in this provision ; which was, that the plaintiff should, on the return of the writ, apprise the defendant of the claim he had to make against him. This object is totally defeated by permitting him to file his demand after the adjournment, after the parties are dismissed, and the defendant has retired. The day, with respect to the cause, is ended by the adjournment ; all matters with respect to it, cease for that day ; the justice ought not therefore to adjourn the cause, unless the demand is filed; he ought, in obedience to the act, to enter a nonsuit. If this be not the course, defendants are ever at the mercy of plaintiffs, and may be kept in perfect ignorance of the claim against them, until after they are obliged to file their pleas. This will not do. There are also errors in the account filed, but it is not necessary now to notice them.

Judgment reversed.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 23







                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-49167) of
Littlefield, Adams & Company (the "Company") of our report dated February 25,
1999 appearing on page F-1 of this December 31, 1998 Form 10-K. It should be
noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the Company
subsequent to December 31, 1998, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to
the date of our report.



Dayton, Ohio                                         /S/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
March 26, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the Trust), does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2015 (the Form 10-K) of the Trust fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

SOUTHWEST BANK,

NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY

AS TRUSTEE OF MARINE
PETROLEUM TRUST



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Ron E. Hooper                    
|Ron E. Hooper                        
|Senior Vice President, Southwest Bank
|                                     
|Dated: September 25, 2015            

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation
S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1982.107 Hearings. ( a ) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title.
( b ) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to an ALJ who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo on the record. Administrative Law Judges have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.
( c ) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.
( d ) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
[80 FR 69132, Nov. 9, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 1791, Jan. 11, 2021]
#### § 3.1 Purpose and scope.

This part prescribes “anti-kickback” regulations under section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (40 U.S.C. 3145), popularly known as the Copeland Act. This part applies to any contract which is subject to Federal wage standards and which is for the construction, prosecution, completion, or repair of public buildings, public works or buildings or works financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from the United States. The part is intended to aid in the enforcement of the minimum wage provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act and the various statutes dealing with federally assisted construction that contain similar minimum wage provisions, including those provisions which are not subject to Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 (*e.g.,* the College Housing Act of 1950, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Housing Act of 1959), and in the enforcement of the overtime provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act whenever they are applicable to construction work. The part details the obligation of contractors and subcontractors relative to the weekly submission of statements regarding the wages paid on work covered thereby; sets forth the circumstances and procedures governing the making of payroll deductions from the wages of those employed on such work; and delineates the methods of payment permissible on such work.

[88 FR 57728, Aug. 23, 2023]
#### § 30.19 Exemptions.

Requests for exemption from these regulations, or any part thereof, must be made in writing to the Registration Agency and must contain a statement of reasons supporting the request. Exemptions may be granted for good cause by the Registration Agency. State Apprenticeship Agencies must receive approval to grant an exemption from the Administrator, prior to granting an exemption from these regulations.
#### CASLON CO v REPUBLIC TRUCK & SALES CORP

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2278.

Decided Feb. 10, 1930

Ritter & Brumback, Toledo, for Caslon Co.

Marshall, Melhorn, Marlar & Martin, for Truck Co.

*166LLOYD, J.

It will be observed that the paintiff denies that the proof of claim filed in the Michigan suit “set up a claim as alleged in the amended answer” and denies that by filing said proof of claim and accepting the pro rata share of the monies distributed in the receivership case, it elected to look solely to the Republic Motor Truck Company, Inc., for payments of its account. In our opinion these affirmations and denials create issues of fact as well as of law and that the court of common pleas erred to the prejudice of plaintiff in error in granting the motion of defendant in error for judgment on the pleadings.

This court must look to the pleadings to determine the issues involved and not to the exhibits attached thereto. The fact that plaintiff in its reply sought to make them part thereof by adding “and made a • part hereof” does not effect this purpose. The exhibits are not such as the code provides may or shall be attached to a pleading. State vs. Collins, 82 Ohio St., 240.

The judgment of the court of common pleas is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to that court to overrule the motion for judgment on the pleadings and for further proceedings according to law.-

Williams and Richards, JJ., concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00101

- CV

Jesus S. Puente v. Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, An Officer of the United States by and through VRM (Vendor Resource Management), Duly Authorized Agent for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021CCV

- 61583

- 5

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, vacates the trial court’s judgment and dismisses th e ca se. The Court orders the judgment vacated and the case is DISMISSED. No costs are assessed as appellant
filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 28, 2022
#### § 779.410 Statutory provision.

Section 7 of the Act provides, in subsection (i):

(i) No employer shall be deemed to have violated subsection (a) by employing any employee of a retail or service establishment for a workweek in excess of the applicable workweek specified therein, if (1) the regular rate of pay of such employee is in excess of one and one-half times the minimum hourly rate applicable to him under section 6, and (2) more than half his compensation for a representative period (not less than 1 month) represents commissions on goods or services. In determining the proportion of compensation representing commissions, all earnings resulting from the application of a bona fide commission rate shall be deemed commissions on goods or services without regard to whether the computed commissions exceed the draw or guarantee.

There are briefly set forth in §§ 779.411 to 779.421 some guiding principles for determining whether an employee's employment and compensation meet the conditions set forth in section 7(i).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 1 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 1

  Informing the President of the United States that a quorum of each 
                          House is assembled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Informing the President of the United States that a quorum of each 
                          House is assembled.

    Resolved, That a committee consisting of two Senators be appointed 
to join such committee as may be appointed by the House of 
Representatives to wait upon the President of the United States and 
inform him that a quorum of each House is assembled and that the 
Congress is ready to receive any communication he may be pleased to 
make.
                                 <all>
```