alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

DWAYNE MICHAEL LAUKA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30371

D.C. No. 2:00-cr-00368-JCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

Dwayne Michael Lauka appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 35-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of 

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lauka contends that his term of supervised release exceeds the maximum 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-30371 

period authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). Specifically, he claims that the district 

court failed to reduce his supervised release term by 24 months to reflect the 24-

month term of imprisonment that he served upon revocation of his supervised 

release in the Districts of Oregon and Eastern California. We disagree. Lauka’s 

sentence in the instant case is based on his violations of the supervised release 

conditions imposed following his conviction in the Western District of 

Washington; he is not entitled to credit for the post-revocation sentence imposed in 

connection with his convictions in the Districts of Oregon and Eastern California. 

See United States v. Hertler, 776 F.3d 680, 684 (9th Cir. 2015) (section 3583(h)’s 

reference to “any term of imprisonment” refers to the post-revocation terms of 

imprisonment imposed with respect to the same underlying offense).

Lauka next contends that the district court failed to consider the sentencing 

factors and explain adequately its reasons for imposing the term of supervised 

release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 

F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district 

court considered only the proper 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and 

adequately explained its reasons for determining that a term of supervised release 

was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en 
 3 15-30371 

banc). Moreover, the sentence is not an abuse of the district court’s discretion in 

light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, 

including Lauka’s extensive criminal history and breach of the court’s trust. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 

1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED.
§ 578.4 Determination of penalty. ( a ) In determining the amount of penalty to be assessed for any violation of section 3(m)(2)(B) or repeated or willful violation of section 6 or section 7 of the Act, the Administrator shall consider the seriousness of the violations and the size of the employer's business.
( b ) Where appropriate, the Administrator may also consider other relevant factors in assessing the penalty, including but not limited to the following: ( 1 ) Whether the employer has made efforts in good faith to comply with the provisions of the Act and this part;
( 2 ) The employer's explanation for the violations, including whether the violations were the result of a bona fide dispute of doubtful legal certainty;
( 3 ) The previous history of violations, including whether the employer is subject to injunction against violations of the Act;
( 4 ) The employer's commitment to future compliance;
( 5 ) The interval between violations;
( 6 ) The number of employees affected; and
( 7 ) Whether there is any pattern to the violations.
[57 FR 49129, Oct. 29, 1992, as amended at 86 FR 52987, Sept. 24, 2021]
#### § 780.314 Operations customarily * * * paid on a piece rate basis * * *.

A significant test of the exemption is that the hand harvest operation “has been, and is customarily and generally recognized as having been, paid on a piece rate basis in the region of employment.” The legislative history is silent on who must customarily and generally recognize the hand harvest operation as having been paid on a piece rate basis. However, considering the context in which the term is used, such recognition must be on the part of agricultural employers and employees and other individuals in the region of employment who are familiar with farming operations and practices in the region and the method of compensation utilized in such operations and practices.
#### § 780.1 General scope of the Act.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is a Federal statute of general application which establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, equal pay, and child labor requirements that apply as provided in the Act. These requirements are applicable, except where exemptions are provided, to employees in those workweeks when they are engaged in interstate or foreign commerce or in the production of goods for such commerce or are employed in enterprises so engaged within the meaning of definitions set forth in the Act. Employers having such employees are required to comply with the Act's provisions in this regard unless relieved therefrom by some exemption in the Act, and with specified recordkeeping requirements contained in part 516 of this chapter. The law authorizes the Department of Labor to investigate for compliance and, in the event of violations, to supervise the payment of unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation owing to any employee. The law also provides for enforcement in the courts.
Related cases: 

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Conce1·n levels: 

SAT Report 

PMN Number: P-11-0484 

SAT Date: 7/19/2011 

Print Date: 7/8/2015 

Yes 

Type of Concern: Health Eco 

Level of Concern: 1-2 2 

2 3 

Persistence 

3 

I 

Exposure Based Review: 

Health: No 

Ecotox: No 

Bioaccum 

1 

I 

Toxicity 

1 

I 

Comments 

PMN 

-

Routes of exposure: Health: De1mal Drinking Water Inhalation 

P2Rec Comments: 

Comment: No Comment 

Keywords: 

Keywords: 

IRR-E,S,L,MM 

LUNG 

UNCERTMUTA 

Ecotox: All releases to water 

Fate: ; PMN slow; 
AQUATOX-A,C 

Summary of Assessment: 

Solid 

log Kow = 0.92 (E) 

S = Disp./22.7 mg/L at 25 C (ICB/E) 

VP < l.OE-6 ton at 25 C (E) 

BP > 400 C (E) 

H < 1.00E-8 (E) 

log Koc = 5.21 (E) 

log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E) 

log Fish BAF = 1.81 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 0 

Time for complete ultimate aerobic 0101Cleg 

S01ption to soils/sediments = PMN "''"~ 

PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; 

*CEB FATE: Migration to 

Health: 

Health Summary: Abs01ption is ~rough the skin and moderate 

and GI tract, based on analogs. The - constituent might oxidize to the 

. There are concems for initation to all exposed tissues and for adverse 

of the PMN substance and infonnation in the 

mutagenicity, based on 

Ecotox: 

Test Test Test End Predicted Measured Comments 

Organism Type Point 

fish 96-h LC50 20 
daphnid 48-h LC50 13 

green algal 96-h EC50 25 

fish chronic 3.1 - value 

daphnid - chronic 2.0 

value 

algal - chronic 12 

value 

Sew ~ 3-h EC50 - lud ~ 

Sew ~ - Chronic - lud ~ Value 

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR 

chemical class = ; - ; concentrations 

based on 100% active concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaC0 3 

for fish and daphnids and 15 to 24 mg/L for green algae; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

SAT Chair:-

Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor:
§ 778.308 The overtime rate is an hourly rate. ( a ) Section 7(a) of the Act requires the payment of overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate. The overtime rate, like the regular rate, is a rate per hour. Where employees are paid on some basis other than an hourly rate, the regular hourly rate is derived, as previously explained, by dividing the total compensation (except statutory exclusions) by the total hours of work for which the payment is made. To qualify as an overtime premium under section 7(e)(5), (6), or (7), the extra compensation for overtime hours must be paid pursuant to a premium rate which is likewise a rate per hour (subject to certain statutory exceptions discussed in §§ 778.400 through 778.421).
( b ) To qualify under section 7(e)(5), the overtime rate must be greater than the regular rate, either a fixed amount per hour or a multiple of the nonovertime rate, such as one and one-third, one and one-half or two times that rate. To qualify under section 7(e) (6) or (7), the overtime rate may not be less than one and one-half times the bonafide rate established in good faith for like work performed during nonovertime hours. Thus, it may not be less than time and one-half but it may be more. It may be a standard multiple greater than one and one-half (for example, double time); or it may be a fixed sum of money per hour which is, as an arithmetical fact, at least one and one-half times the nonovertime rate for example, if the nonovertime rate is $5 per hour, the overtime rate may not be less than $7.50 but may be set at a higher arbitrary figure such as $8 per hour.
[33 FR 986, Jan. 26, 1968, as amended at 46 FR 7314, Jan. 23, 1981]
#### JACKSON v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 86-086 AC (County Court Case No. 83327, 9MW)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

May 11, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Sheldon L. Gottlieb for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Mark S. Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALMON, SHAPIRO, DONNER, JJ.

*174OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty of two offenses—failure to file an accident report and careless driving. No testimony was presented placing the Appellant behind the wheel of the vehicle involved in the subject accident. The sole evidence suggesting Appellant had been at the accident site was his wallet which was found one mile from the scene. This circumstantial evidence is insufficient to support a guilty verdict. *Lee v. State,*374 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Accordingly, the judgment and conviction are reversed.
#### § 408.11 Dissemination and verification of reports.

Every labor organization required to submit a report shall make available the information required to be contained in such report to all of its members, and every such labor organization and its officers shall be under a duty to permit such member for just cause to examine any books, records, and accounts necessary to verify such report.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-K and is qualified in it entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,767
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>(1)                                 5,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     67,521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,863
<PP&E,NET>(2)                                   71,612
<ACC DEP>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,771
<BONDS>                                         95,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,226
<SALES>                                        443,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               443,310
<CGS>                                          317,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  317,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               128,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,546)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       126
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,672)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,672)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.75)

(1) Receivables shown net of allowances.
(2) PP&E is net of accumulated depreciation.
        

</TABLE>
#### § 452.48 Employees of union.

A labor organization may in its constitution and bylaws prohibit members who are also its full-time non-elective employees from being candidates for union office, because of the potential conflict of interest arising from the employment relationship which could be detrimental to the union as an institution.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 99-ANM-11]


Establishment of Class D Airspace; Jackson, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; establishment of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes the effective date for the 
establishment of a Class D surface area at Jackson Hole Airport, 
Jackson, WY. The contractual agreements to run the Airport Traffic 
Control Tower (ATCT) under the FAA contract tower program have now been 
implemented. Operations at the ATCT will commence on May 15, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of FR Doc. 00-3382 is May 15, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Durham, ANM-520.7, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Docket No. 99-ANM-11, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., 
Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; telephone number: (425) 227-2527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Airspace Docket No. 99-ANM-11, published in the Federal Register on 
February 14, 2000 (65 FR 7287), established a Class D surface airspace 
area at Jackson Hole Airport, Jackson, WY. This action was originally 
scheduled to become effective on April 20, 2000. A delay was 
encountered concerning the contractual requirements for the operation 
of the ATCT. The length of the delay was uncertain so a delay of 
effective date action was effected. Contractual requirements for the 
ATCT have been resolved, the new effective date for operations at 
Jackson Hole, WY is May 15, 2000.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an 
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and 
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under 
DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter 
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is 
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Establishment of Effective Date

    The effective date on Airspace Docket 99-ANM-11 is hereby 
established as May 15, 2000.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 4, 2000.
Charles E. Davis,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 00-12823 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 15 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 15

Electing David J. Schiappa of Maryland as Secretary for the Minority of 
                              the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Electing David J. Schiappa of Maryland as Secretary for the Minority of 
                              the Senate.

    Resolved, That David J. Schiappa of Maryland be, and he is hereby, 
elected Secretary for the Minority of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT (99.1)

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Annual Report of Lufkin Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Douglas V. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 /s/ Douglas V. Smith
-----------------------------

Douglas V. Smith
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2003

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.
§ 511.2 Initiation of proceedings; notices of hearings. ( a ) Wage order proceedings are initiated by order of the Secretary, published in the Federal Register, giving notice of hearings by industry committees to recommend the minimum rate or rates of wages to be paid under section 6 of the Act to employees in American Samoa engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce or in any enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. These orders will contain a definition of the particular industry in American Samoa, for which the committee is to make its recommendations, or these orders will direct the committee to recommend the minimum rate or rates of wages for all industry in American Samoa. All such orders will make provision for convening the committee. Any particular industry defined in such an order may be a trade, business, industry, or branch thereof, or group of industries, in which individuals are gainfully employed.
( b ) These orders will also give reasonable notice ( 1 ) of the time and place of the commencement of the hearing of such witnesses and receiving of such evidence as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the committee to perform its duties and functions under the Act,
( 2 ) of the general nature of the wage order proceedings and the authority under which they are proposed,
( 3 ) of the subjects and issues involved, and
( 4 ) that the committee will take official notice of the economic report (note § 511.13) and the parties will have an opportunity at the hearing to show any contrary or additional facts.
[26 FR 6513, July 20, 1961, as amended at 55 FR 12120, Mar. 30, 1990]
# Journal officiel C 277A/12 n

| | ISSN 1725-2431 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 277A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 47e année12 novembre 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2431

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 277A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

47e année12 novembre 2004

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificatifs |
| | |
| 2004/C 277A/2 | Rectificatif à la publication d'un avis de vacance pour un poste de directeur général (grade A* 15) (Article 29, paragraphe 2, du statut) — COM/R/7022/04 — Centre commun de recherche (Journal officiel de l'Union européenne C  234 A du 21 septembre 2004 ) | 3 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

Rectificatifs

2004/C 277A/2

Rectificatif à la publication d'un avis de vacance pour un poste de directeur général (grade A* 15) (Article 29, paragraphe 2, du statut) — COM/R/7022/04 — Centre commun de recherche (Journal officiel de l'Union européenne C  234 A du 21 septembre 2004 )

3

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

Rectificatifs

12.11.2004

| 12.11.2004 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 277/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 277/3

---

Rectificatif à la publication d'un avis de vacance pour un poste de directeur général (grade A* 15) (Article 29, paragraphe 2, du statut) — COM/R/7022/04 — Centre commun de recherche

(«Journal officiel de l'Union européenne» C  234 A du 21 septembre 2004 )

(2004/C 277 A/01)

Page 42, concernant la «Date de clôture»:

au lieu de:

«La date limite d'inscription est fixée au 15 novembre 2004. Les inscriptions en ligne seront clôturées à 12 heures (midi), heure de Bruxelles.»

lire:

«La date limite d'inscription est fixée au 30 novembre 2004. Les inscriptions en ligne seront clôturées à 12 heures (midi), heure de Bruxelles.».

---
----

----

I Informācija

Komisija

----

KOPĒJAIS LAUKSAIMNIECĪBAS AUGU ŠĶIRŅU KATALOGS

22. pilnā izdevuma 14. papildinājums

(2004/C 279 A/01)

SATURS

Paskaidrojumi

Lauksaimniecības augu sugu saraksts

PASKAIDROJUMS

I

1.BETA VULGARIS L.

2.BETA VULGARIS L.

II

6.AGROSTIS CAPILLARIS L.

9.BROMUS CATHARTICUS VAHL

10.BROMUS SITCHENSIS TRIN.

12.DACTYLIS GLOMERATA L.

13.FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA SCHREBER

14.FESTUCA OVINA L.

15.FESTUCA PRATENSIS HUDSON

16.FESTUCA RUBRA L.

16A.× FESTULOLIUM

17.LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.

18.LOLIUM PERENNE L.

19.LOLIUM × BOUCHEANUM KUNTH

22.PHLEUM PRATENSE L.

26.POA PRATENSIS L.

30.LOTUS CORNICULATUS L.

35.MEDICAGO SATIVA L.

37.ONOBRYCHIS VICIIFOLIA SCOP.

38.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

40.TRIFOLIUM HYBRIDUM L.

42.TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE L.

43.TRIFOLIUM REPENS L.

46.VICIA FABA L. (PARTIM)

48.VICIA SATIVA L.

49.VICIA VILLOSA ROTH.

50.BRASSICA NAPUS L. VAR. NAPOBRASSICA (L.) RCHB.

52.PHACELIA TANACETIFOLIA BENTH.

53.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L. VAR. OLEIFORMIS PERS.

III

55.BRASSICA RAPA L. VAR. SILVESTRIS (LAM.) BRIGGS

57.BRASSICA NAPUS L. (PARTIM)

62.GOSSYPIUM SPP.

63.HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.

64.LINUM USITATISSIMUM L.

65.PAPAVER SOMNIFERUM L.

66.SINAPIS ALBA L.

67.GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL

IV

68.AVENA SATIVA L.

69.HORDEUM VULGARE L.

70.ORYZA SATIVA L.

72.SECALE CEREALE L.

76.× TRITICOSECALE WITTM.

77.TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. EMEND. FIORI ET PAOL.

78.TRITICUM DURUM DESF.

79.TRITICUM SPELTA L.

80.ZEA MAYS L.

V

81.SOLANUM TUBEROSUM L.

----

(1)OV C 91 A, 16.4.2003.. Katalogs kurā jaunākie grozījumi izdarīti ar 13. papildinājumu (OV C 232 A, 17.9.2004., 1. lpp.).

(2)OV L 193, 20.7.2002., 1. lpp.

----