alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 516.26 Employees paid for overtime at premium rates computed on a “basic” rate authorized in accordance with section 7(g)(3) of the Act. With respect to each employee compensated for overtime hours at a “basic” rate which is substantially equivalent to the employee's average hourly earnings, as authorized in accordance with section 7(g)(3) of the Act and part 548 of this chapter, employers shall maintain and preserve records containing all the information and data required by § 516.2 except paragraph (a)(6) thereof and, in addition, the following: ( a ) ( 1 ) The hourly rates, piece rates, or commission rates applicable to each type of work performed by the employee,
( 2 ) The computation establishing the basic rate at which the employee is compensated for overtime hours (if the employee is part of a workforce or employed in or by an establishment all of whose workers have agreed to accept this method of compensation, a single entry of this computation will suffice),
( 3 ) The amount and nature of each payment which, pursuant to section 7(e) of the Act, is excluded from the “regular rate.”
( b ) ( 1 ) Identity of representative period for computing the basic rate,
( 2 ) the period during which the established basic rate is to be used for computing overtime compensation,
( 3 ) information which establishes that there is no significant difference between the pertinent terms, conditions and circumstances of employment in the period selected for the computation of the basic rate and those in the period for which the basic rate is used for computing overtime compensation, which could affect the representative character of the period from which the basic rate is derived.
( c ) A copy of the written agreement or, if there is no such agreement, a memorandum summarizing the terms of and showing the date and period covered by the oral agreement or understanding to use this method of computation. If the employee is one of a group, all of whom have agreed to use this method of computation, a single memorandum will suffice.
#### State Farm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Michelina Maniscalco et al., Respondent, v Amana Refrigeration, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[698 NYS2d 300]

—In a subrogation action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendants appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered March 5, 1998, as denied the motion of the defendant Amana Refrigeration, Inc., in which the defendant Sears, Roebuck and Company joined, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 or precluding the introduction of expert testimony at trial, and (2) from a judgment of the same court (Cowhey, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial and the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter bf law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $132,280.60.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal terminated with entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). *373The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiffs subrogor, Antoinette Anobile, purchased a refrigerator from Sears, Roebuck & Co. (hereinafter Sears) in January 1992. The refrigerator was manufactured by the defendant Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (hereinafter Amana). After experiencing numerous problems with the refrigerator, which were promptly reported to Sears, Anobile’s apartment caught fire on October 29, 1992. Fire investigators retained by the plaintiff inspected the scene and determined from burn patterns and other evidence that the fire originated inside the freezer compartment of the refrigerator. A toaster oven found unplugged on the counter near the refrigerator, which had not been used since that morning, was discarded and not examined as a possible cause of the fire.

The defendants’ contention that its defense was compromised because of the spoliation of evidence is without merit. The toaster oven, which the defendants contend was an alternative cause of the fire, was not a key piece of evidence that should have been preserved *(see, Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth.,*236 AD2d 170).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law. *“A*trial court’s grant of a CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the non-moving party” *(Szczerbiak v Pilot,*90 NY2d 553, 556). Here, sufficient evidence was adduced to establish that the refrigerator was the origin of the fire. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
[666 NE2d 1364, 644 NYS2d 491]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeff Thomas, Appellant.

Argued March 21, 1996;

decided April 25, 1996

*823APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Ronna Gordon-Galchus,*Bayside, for appellant.

*Richard A. Brown, District Attorney*of Queens County, Kew Gardens *(Cheryl Hone*and *Steven J. Chananie*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We affirm for the reasons stated by Presiding Justice Mangano at the Appellate Division (213 AD2d 73). We add that our decision in *People v Smith*(87 NY2d 715) is not to the contrary. *Smith*stands for a different and more limited proposition involving waiver of inquiry with respect to pending criminal charges on an unrelated matter.

*824Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
§ 452.57 Procedures for nomination. ( a ) Since the Act does not prescribe particular procedures for the nomination of candidates, the labor organization is free to employ any method that will provide a reasonable opportunity for making nominations. There are various methods which, if properly and fairly employed, would be considered reasonable under the Act. For example, nominations may be by petition, or from the floor at a nomination meeting.
( b ) Whether a particular procedure is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Act is a question which will depend upon the particular facts in each case. While a particular procedure may not on its face violate the requirements of the Act, its application in a given instance may make nomination so difficult as to deny the members a reasonable opportunity to nominate.
###### Editorial Note on Part 6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 6 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 6.57 Petition for review.

Within 10 days after the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, any interested party who participated in the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge and desires review of the decision shall file a petition for review by the Administrative Review Board pursuant to 29 CFR part 8. The petition shall refer to the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or order excepted to and the specific pages of transcript relevant to the petition for review.
#### § 778.319 Paying for but not counting hours worked.

In some contracts provision is made for payment for certain hours, which constitute working time under the Act, coupled with a provision that these hours will not be counted as working time. Such a provision is a nullity. If the hours in question are hours worked, they must be counted as such in determining whether more than the applicable maximum hours have been worked in the workweek. If more hours have been worked, the employee must be paid overtime compensation at not less than one and one-half times his regular rate for all overtime hours. A provision that certain hours will be compensated only at straight time rates is likewise invalid. If the hours are actually hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard, extra half-time compensation will be due regardless of any agreement to the contrary.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20669]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its 
intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The 
purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The 
agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation 
may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The 
majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being 
reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) 
of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the 
agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an 
individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish a 
notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of 
the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the 
proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on 
changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web-site: 
http://www.nsf.gov. This information may also be requested by 
telephoning, 703-292-8182.

    Dated: August 10, 2011.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-20669 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
1 The Honorable Rodney W. Si ppel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3642

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Edward G. Boyer, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 6, 2007 Filed: September 14, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The district court 1 revoked Edward G. Boyer’s (B oyer) supervised release and sentenced him below the advisory revoca tion range to 18 months in prison and 18 months of supervised release with the first 90 days of supervised release to be served in an inpatient drug abuse treatment program. Boyer appeals the sentence as unreasonable. After reviewing the record and Boyer’s arguments, we conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). Inparticular, the court was mindful of the-2- need to provide Boyer with drug treatment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D), and fashioned the sentence accordingly: the court imposed a pris on term below the advisory range and required Boyer to spend time in inpatient drug treatment. We therefore affirm.

______________________________
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of the Secretary

      ( print page 49836)    
In accordance with section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Republic of

Iraq is not included in this list, but its status with respect to future lists remains under review by the Department of the Treasury.

Dated: August 1, 2011.

Michael J. Caballero,

International Tax Counsel, (Tax Policy).

[FR Doc. 2011-20318 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20106]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.
    Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement--76 FR 45798 
(August 1, 2011)

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, August 4, 2011, at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: Meeting open to the public.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The following item was withdrawn from the 
agenda: Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on Nader for President 
(2008) (NFP).
    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Commission Secretary and Clerk, at 
(202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-20106 Filed 8-4-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
**Exhibit 10.104**

 

**STRAIGHT NOTE**

 

 

| $300,000 |   | South  El Monte, California |   | July 17,  2003 |
|----------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------|

 

 

For value received, LeePharmaceuticals promises to pay Monticello Drug Company or order, at SouthEl Monte, California, the sum of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, withinterest adjusted to the date funds are received, on unpaid principal at therate of ten (10) percent per annum. Interest only will be payable on the 20thof each month commencing August 20, 2003. Interest shall be calculated onthe basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, based on a 365-day year,actual day month and payable monthly. Principal and interest shall be payablein lawful money of the United States. If action were instituted on this note, Ipromise to pay such sum as the Court may fix as attorney's fees. This note issecured by the trademark on the product brand Aquafilter®. The duedate of this note is October 12, 2005 or later.

 

After two years, fromJuly 17, 2003, either party can give 90 days written notice to pay off orask for the funds back.

 

1) General CorporateObligation

 

2) Personal Guarantee ofRonald G. Lee

 

 
| July 9,  2003 |   | /s/  Ronald G.  Lee        |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Date               |   | Lee Pharmaceuticals -  Ronald G. Lee |

 

 
| July 9,  2003 |   | /s/  Michael L.  Agresti        |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
| Date               |   | Lee Pharmaceuticals -  Michael L. Agresti |

 

 

----
#### § 528.7 Effect of order of annulment or withdrawal.

Except as otherwise expressly provided in such order, any order of annulment or withdrawal under paragraph (a) or (b) of § 528.3 shall be effective to terminate all certifications to which the regulations in this part apply in effect at the establishment where the cause for withdrawal arose or where the annulled certificate had effect. After such annulment or withdrawal, such employer shall be ineligible to obtain or exercise the privileges granted in such a certificate until he satisfies the issuing officer that he will not again give cause for annulment or withdrawal if a certificate is issued.

(Secretary's Order No. 16-75, dated Nov. 25, 1975 (40 FR 55913); Employment Standards Order No 76-2, dated Feb. 23, 1976 (41 FR 9016))

[43 FR 28469, June 30, 1978]
#### § 452.109 Constitution of labor organization.

Elections must be conducted in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the organization insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of title IV.[53]

###### Footnotes -
  452.109

[53] Act, sec. 401(e). Under 29 CFR 402.10, a labor organization is required to make available to all members a copy of its constitution and bylaws.
#### § 778.115 Employees working at two or more rates.

Where an employee in a single workweek works at two or more different types of work for which different nonovertime rates of pay (of not less than the applicable minimum wage) have been established, his regular rate for that week is the weighted average of such rates. That is, his total earnings (except statutory exclusions) are computed to include his compensation during the workweek from all such rates, and are then divided by the total number of hours worked at all jobs. Certain statutory exceptions permitting alternative methods of computing overtime pay in such cases are discussed in §§ 778.400 and 778.415 through 778.421.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 96-40122 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RUBEN RIVERA-PASTRANA, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas (L-95-CR-160-1)

_________________________________________________________________ September 13, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Ruben Rive ra-Pastrana appeals the denial of his request for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss indictment on double jeopardy grounds. However, pursuant to a plea agreement, he specifically agreed to postpone appellate rev iew until after-2-

conviction and sentence. This court lacks jurisdiction to hear his appeal. See Abney v. United States , 431 U.S. 651, 662 (1977).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
(75 South. 1004)

#### BATTLE v. STATE.

(6 Div. 217.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 8, 1917.)

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

W. L, Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 779.258 Sales made or business done.

The Senate Report on the 1966 amendments reaffirmed the intent to measure the “dollar volume of sales or business” including “the gross receipts or gross business” to determine whether an enterprise is covered. This concept was first expressed in the Senate Report on the 1961 amendment (S. Rept. No. 145, 87th Congress, first session, p. 38). The phrase “business done” added by the 1966 amendments to section 3(s) merely reflects with more clarity the economic test of business size expressed in the prior Act in terms of “annual gross volume of sales” and conforms the language of the Act with the Congressional view expressed in the legislative history of the 1961 amendments. Thus, the annual gross volume of an enterprise must include any business activity in which it engages which can be measured on a dollar basis irrespective of whether the enterprise is tested under the prior or amended Act. The Senate Report on the 1966 amendments states:

The intent to measure the “dollar volume of sales or business” including the “gross receipts or gross business” in determining coverage of such an enterprise was expressed in the Senate report above cited at page 38. The addition of the term “business done” to the statutory language should make this intent abundantly plain for the future and remove any possible reason for misapprehension. The annual gross volume of sales made or business done by an enterprise, within the meaning of section 3(s), will thus continue to include both the gross dollar volume of the sales (as defined in sec. 3(k)) which it makes, as measured by the price paid by the purchaser for the property or service sold to him (exclusive of any excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated), and the gross dollar volume of any other business activity in which the enterprise engages which can be similarly measured on a dollar basis. This would include, for example, such activity by an enterprise as making loans or renting or leasing property of any kind. (S. Rept. No. 1487, 89th Congress, second session, pp. 7-8.)
#### Tim Makas, Appellant, v Robert Every, Respondent.

Submitted April 29, 1996;

decided May 2, 1996

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).
§ 500.211 Contents of notice. The notice required by § 500.210 shall: ( a ) Set forth the determination of the Secretary and the reason or reasons therefor.
( b ) Set forth, in the case of a civil money penalty assessment: ( 1 ) A description of each violation; and
( 2 ) The amount assessed for each violation.
( c ) Set forth the right to request a hearing on such determination.
( d ) Inform any affected person or persons that in the absence of a timely request for a hearing, the determination of the Secretary shall become final and unappealable.
( e ) Set forth the time and method for requesting a hearing, and the procedures relating thereto, as set forth in § 500.212.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-135380) and Form S-8 (No. 333-99377) of Longview Fibre Company of our report dated February 27, 2007 relating to the financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Longview Fibre Company Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|                              
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP    
|Portland, Oregon              
|April 11, 2007