alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 776.8 The statutory provisions. ( a ) The activities constituting “commerce” within the meaning of the phrase “engaged in commerce” in sections 6 and 7 of the Act are defined in section 3(b) as follows: *Commerce* means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States, or between any State and any place outside thereof.[21]
As has been noted in § 776.7, the word “State” in this definition refers not only to any of the fifty States but also to the District of Columbia and to any Territory or possession of the United States.
( b ) It should be observed that the term *commerce* is very broadly defined. The definition does not limit the term to transportation, or to the “commercial” transactions involved in “trade,” although these are expressly included. Neither is the term confined to commerce in “goods.” Obviously, “transportation” or “commerce” between any State and any place outside its boundaries includes a movement of persons as well as a movement of goods. And “transmission” or “communication” across State lines constitutes “commerce” under the definition, without reference to whether anything so transmitted or communicated is “goods.”[22]
The inclusion of the term “commerce” in the definition of the same term as used in the Act implies that no special or limited meaning is intended; rather, that the scope of the term for purposes of the Act is at least as broad as it would be under concepts of “commerce” established without reference to this definition. Footnotes -
776.8
[21] As amended by section 3(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1949.
[22] “Goods” is, however, broadly defined in the Act. See § 776.20(a).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                                                            U.S.A.


                              RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT
                              OF LICENSE AGREEMENT


                THIS RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT effective as of the 1st day
of February, 1998 by and between PepsiCo, Inc., a corporation of the State of
North Carolina, with its principal place of business at 700 Anderson Hill Road,
Purchase, New York 10577, U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as "LICENSOR") and
Littlefield Adams & Co., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, with its
principal place of business at 6254 Executive Blvd., Huber Heights, Ohio 45424
(hereinafter referred to as "LICENSEE"). 

               WHEREAS, LICENSOR and LICENSEE are parties to a certain License
Agreement dated February 1, 1996, amended on October 1, 1996, and wish to renew
and amend said Agreement only as specifically set forth below; without
modifying, changing or otherwise amending any other provisions of said
Agreement, and therefore the parties agree as follows:

         To renew for two (2) years, namely, February 1, 1998 through January
31, 2000.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Renewal Agreement effective as of the date and year first set forth hereinabove.

PepsiCo, Inc. (LICENSOR)


By: /s/ William S. Finkelstein
Name: William S. Finkelstein
Title: Vice President



Littlefield Adams & Co. (LICENSEE)


By: /s/ Michael B. Balber
Name: Michael B. Balber
Title: Executive Vice President
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 1921

CHRISTINA BROWN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. AMAZON HEADQUARTERS, LLC, a/k/a Amazon.com, Inc.; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff , District Judge. ( 1:23

- cv - 00189

- MSN

- WEF )

Submitted : January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Christina Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Paul Berg, Gilda Bethany Ingle, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1921 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Christina Brown appeals the district court’s order (a) denying Brown’s motion s to remand and for leave to amend her complaint ; and (b) granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Brown’s wrongful death action against Defendants. We have reviewed the record
and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Brown v. Amazon Headquarters, LLC , No. 1:23

- cv - 00189

- MSN

- WEF ( E.D. Va

. Aug. 4, 2023 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1921 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 531.2 Purpose and scope. ( a ) Section 3(m) of the Act defines the term “wage” to include the “reasonable cost”, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, to an employer of furnishing any employee with board, lodging, or other facilities, if such board, lodging, or other facilities are customarily furnished by the employer to his employees. In addition, section 3(m) gives the Secretary authority to determine the “fair value.” of such facilities on the basis of average cost to the employer or to groups of employers similarly situated, on average value to groups of employees, or other appropriate measures of “fair value.” Whenever so determined and when applicable and pertinent, the “fair value” of the facilities involved shall be includable as part of “wages” instead of the actual measure of the costs of those facilities. The section provides, however, that the cost of board, lodging, or other facilities shall not be included as part of “wages” if excluded therefrom by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement. Section 3(m) also provides a method for determining the wage of a tipped employee.
( b ) This part 531 contains any determinations made as to the “reasonable cost” and “fair value” of board, lodging, or other facilities having general application, and describes the procedure whereby determinations having general or particular application may be made. The part also interprets generally the provisions of section 3(m) of the Act, including the term “tipped employee” as defined in section 3(t).
#### § 776.6 Coverage not dependent on place of work.

Except for the general geographical limitations discussed in § 776.7, the Act contains no prescription as to the place where the employee must work in order to come within its coverage. It follows that employees otherwise coming within the terms of the Act are entitled to its benefits whether they perform their work at home, in the factory, or elsewhere.[18] The specific provisions of the Act relative to regulation of homework serve to emphasize this fact.[19]

###### Footnotes -
  776.6

[18] *Walling* v. *American Needlecrafts,* 139 F. 2d 60 (C.A. 6); *Walling* v. *Twyeffort Inc.,* 158 F. 2d 944 (C.A. 2); *McComb* v. *Homeworkers' Handicraft Cooperative,* 176 F. 2d 633 (C.A. 4).

[19] See 6(a)(2); Sec. 11(d).
§ 500.224 Referral to Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) Upon receipt of a timely request for a hearing filed pursuant to and in accordance with § 500.212, the Secretary, by the Associate Solicitor for the Division of Fair Labor Standards or by the Regional Solicitor for the Region in which the action arose, shall, by Order of Reference, promptly refer an authenticated copy of the notice of administrative determination complained of, and the original or a duplicate copy of the request for hearing signed by the person requesting such hearing or by the authorized representative of such person, to the Chief Administrative Law Judge, for a determination in an administrative proceeding as provided herein. The notice of administrative determination and request for hearing shall be filed of record in the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge and shall, respectively, be given the effect of a complaint and answer thereto for purposes of the administrative proceeding, subject to any amendment that may be permitted under these regulations.
( b ) In cases involving a denial, suspension, or revocation of a Certificate of Registration (Farm Labor Contractor Certificate; Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate) or “certificate action,” including those cases where the farm labor contractor has requested a hearing on civil money penalty(ies) as well as on the certificate action, the date of the hearing shall be not more than sixty (60) days from the date on which the Order of Reference is filed. No request for postponement shall be granted except for compelling reasons.
( c ) A copy of the Order of Reference, together with a copy of these regulations, shall be served by counsel for the Secretary upon the person requesting the hearing, in the manner provided in 29 CFR 18.3.
[48 FR 36741, Aug. 12, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 24866, May 16, 1996]
§ 38.81 Complaint referral. The Director refers complaints to other agencies in the following circumstances: ( a ) Where the complaint alleges discrimination based on age, and the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, then the Director must refer the complaint, in accordance with the provisions of 45 CFR 90.43(c)(3).
( b ) Where the only allegation in the complaint is a charge of individual employment discrimination that is covered both by WIOA or this part and by one or more of the laws listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, then the complaint is a “joint complaint,” and the Director may refer it to the EEOC for investigation and conciliation under the procedures described in 29 CFR part 1640 or 1691, as appropriate. The relevant laws are: ( 1 ) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17);
( 2 ) The Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d));
( 3 ) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1976, as amended (29 U.S.C. 621, *et seq.*); and
( 4 ) Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12101 *et seq.*).
( c ) Where the complaint alleges discrimination by an entity that operates a program or activity financially assisted by a Federal grantmaking agency other than the Department, but that participates as a partner in a one-stop delivery system, the following procedures apply: ( 1 ) Where the complaint alleges discrimination on a basis that is prohibited both by Section 188 of WIOA and by a civil rights law enforced by the Federal grantmaking agency, then CRC and the grantmaking agency have dual jurisdiction over the complaint, and the Director will refer the complaint to the grantmaking agency for processing. In such circumstances, the grantmaking agency's regulations will govern the processing of the complaint.
( 2 ) Where the complaint alleges discrimination on a basis that is prohibited by Section 188 of WIOA, but not by any civil rights laws enforced by the Federal grantmaking agency, then CRC has sole jurisdiction over the complaint, and will retain the complaint and process it pursuant to this part. Such bases generally include religion, political affiliation or belief, citizenship, and/or participation in a WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity.
( d ) Where the Director makes a referral under this section, the Director must notify the complainant and the respondent about the referral.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12203]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of Citizen Advocacy Panel, Brooklyn District

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy 
Panel will be held in Flushing, New York.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, June 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen Cain at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-
488-3555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988), 
that an operational meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held 
Wednesday, June 7, 2000, 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Queens Borough 
Public Library at 41-17 Main Street, Flushing, N.Y. 11355. If you are 
in need of a hearing impaired or a language interpreter or for more 
information please contact Eileen Cain. Mrs. Cain can be reached at 1-
888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. The public is invited to make oral 
comments from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 7, 2000. 
Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to 
have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 
or 718-488-3555, or write Eileen Cain, CAP Office, P.O. Box R, 
Brooklyn, NY 11202.
    The Agenda will include the following: introductions of the panel 
and open discussions with the public.

    Note: Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could 
prevent effective advance notice.


    Dated: April 28, 2000.
M. Cathy VanHorn,
Director, CAP, Communications & Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-12203 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
§ 38.63 Authority and procedures for conducting post-approval compliance reviews. ( a ) The Director may initiate a post-approval compliance review of any recipient to determine compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA and this part. The initiation of a post-approval review may be based on, but need not be limited to, the results of routine program monitoring by other Departmental or Federal agencies, or the nature or frequency of complaints.
( b ) A post-approval review must be initiated by a Notification Letter, advising the recipient of: ( 1 ) The practices to be reviewed;
( 2 ) The programs to be reviewed;
( 3 ) The information, records, and/or data to be submitted by the recipient within 30 days of the receipt of the Notification Letter, unless this time frame is modified by the Director; and
( 4 ) The opportunity, at any time before receipt of the Final Determination described in §§ 38.95 and 38.96, to make a documentary or other written submission that explains, validates or otherwise addresses the practices under review.
( c ) The Director may conduct post-approval reviews using such techniques as desk audits and on-site reviews.
§ 70.22 Appeals from denial of requests. ( a ) A requester may appeal to the Solicitor of Labor from any adverse determination, including but not limited to when one or more of the following has occurred: A request for access to records has been denied in whole or in part; a requester disputes a determination that records cannot be located or have been destroyed; a requester disputes a determination by a component concerning the assessment or waiver of fees; a requester disputes the denial of a request for expedited processing; or a component fails to respond to a request within the time limits set forth in the FOIA and referenced in 70.25(a). The appeal must be filed within 90 days of the date of the action being appealed.
( b ) The appeal must state in writing the grounds for appeal, and it may include any supporting statements or arguments, but such statements are not required. In order to facilitate processing of the appeal, the appeal should include the assigned request number (if applicable), appellant's mailing address and daytime telephone number, as well as copies of the initial request and the component's response. If mailed, the envelope and the letter of appeal should be clearly marked: “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” Any amendment to the appeal must be in writing and received prior to a decision on the appeal.
( c ) The appeal should be addressed to the Solicitor of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, FOIA Appeals Unit, Division of Management and Administrative Legal Services, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2420, Washington, DC 20210. Appeals also may be submitted by fax to 202-693-5538 or by email to *foiaappeal@dol.gov .* Appeals submitted to any other email address will not be accepted.
§ 502.32 Contents of notice. The notice required by § 501.31 shall: ( a ) Set forth the determination of the Administrator, WHD including the amount of any unpaid wages due or actions necessary to fulfill a covered contractual obligation, the amount of any civil money penalty assessment and the reason or reasons therefore.
( b ) Set forth the right to request a hearing on such determination.
( c ) Inform any affected person or persons that in the absence of a timely request for a hearing, the determination of the Administrator, WHD shall become final and unappealable.
( d ) Set forth the time and method for requesting a hearing, and the procedures relating thereto, as set forth in § 501.33.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUI T

________________________ No. 18

- 13374 Non

- Argum ent Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket N o . 2:17

- cr - 00102

- SPC

- MRM

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
v ersus JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (March 7, 2019) B efore ED CARNES , Chief Judge, MARTIN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges
. PER CURIAM : The Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant ’ s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced

Case: 18-13374 Date Filed: 03/07/2019 Page: 1 of 22 if it was made knowingly and voluntarily ); United States v. Grinard

- Henry , 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).

Case: 18-13374 Date Filed: 03/07/2019 Page: 2 of 2
##### 



(a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon
such evaluation; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ Charles P. Cooley

Charles P. CooleyChief Financial OfficerFebruary 28, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                          68,698
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,336
<PP&E>                                           1,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                     405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 182,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          222,541
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,550
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,697)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   182,394
<SALES>                                        152,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,980
<CGS>                                          135,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                66,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,502)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,502)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.005)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-7317

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MORTON M. LAPIDES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-87-123, CA-92-45-N)

Submitted: August 6, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel I. Prywes, PEPPER, HAMILTON & SCHEETZ, Washington, D.C.;

Dale Andrew Cooter, Donna Simonek Mangold, COOTER, MANGOLD,

TOMPERT, CHAPMAN & COOTER, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Andrea Limmer, John J. Powers, III, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217, or in the alternative, for a writ of

error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1988). Appellant

also appeals the denial of his motions for judicial recusal and for

discovery. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lapides, Nos.

CR-87-123; CA-92-45-N (E.D. Va. May 22, 1992; July 20, 1993; Oct.

21, 1994). 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.

AFFIRMED