alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 780.607 “Primarily employed” in agriculture.

Not only must the employee be employed in agriculture, but he must be “primarily” so employed during the particular workweek or weeks in which the 13(b)(13) exemption is to be applied. The word “primarily” may be considered to mean chiefly or principally (*Agnew* v. *Board of Governors,* 153 F. 2d 785). This interpretation is consistent with the view, expressed by the sponsor of the exemption at the time of its adoption on the floor of the Senate (107 Cong. Rec. (daily ed., April 19, 1961), p. 5879), that the word means “most of his time.” The Department of Labor will consider that an employee who spends more than one-half of his hours worked in the particular workweek in agriculture, as defined in the Act, is “primarily” employed in agriculture during that week.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Federal Maritime Commission.

# TIME AND DATE: 

August 17, 2011—10 a.m.

# PLACE: 

800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

Part of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.

## Matters To Be Considered

### Open

1. Staffing Briefing and Discussion of Draft Proposed Rule on Passenger Vessel Financial Responsibility Requirements.

### Closed

1. Staff Briefing and Recommendation Regarding Special Reporting Requirements for the Transpacific Stabilization Agreement and the Westbound Transpacific Stabilization Agreement.

2. Staff Update and Discussion of PierPass Traffic Mitigation Fee.

3. Container Freight Index and Derivatives Working Group—Update on Index-Based Service Contract Filings and Regulatory Issues.

4. Staff Briefing and Discussion of the Reconstruction Proceedings and Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Petition of the Containership Company A/S.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-20648 Filed 8-10-11; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 

First Amendment to the 

INVENTIV GROUP HOLDINGS, INC. 

2010 Equity Incentive Plan 

Pursuant to Section 9 of the inVentiv Group Holdings, Inc. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended
as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4(a) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 


(a) Number of Shares. A maximum of 418,588 shares of Stock may be delivered in satisfaction of Awards under the
Plan, including ISOs. To the extent consistent with Section 422, (i) shares of Stock withheld by the Company in payment of the exercise price of the Award or in satisfaction of Award-related tax withholding requirements and shares of Stock
underlying Awards that are settled in cash, expire, become unexercisable without having been exercised, or are forfeited or repurchased by the Company for cash shall not be treated as having been delivered under the Plan; provided, however, that 25%
of any shares of Stock underlying Stock Options other than the Walter Options (as defined below) that are withheld by the Company in payment of the exercise price of the Award or in satisfaction of Award-related tax withholding requirements and
shares of Stock underlying Awards that are settled in cash, expire, become unexercisable without having been exercised, or are forfeited or repurchased by the Company for cash, in each case at any time after January 27, 2012, shall be treated
as having been delivered under the Plan (rounded to the nearest whole share), and (ii) Stock issued under awards of an acquired company that are converted, replaced or adjusted in connection with the acquisition will not reduce the number of
shares available for Awards under the Plan. “Walter Options” shall mean the MoM Performance-Based Options granted to R. Blane Walter under the Plan on August 11, 2010. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, inVentiv Group Holdings, Inc. has caused this instrument of amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this
9th day of April, 2012. 
  

			
	INVENTIV GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Eric M. Sherbert
(77 South. 969)

#### JONES v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY.

(3 Div. 305.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1918.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1918.)

Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;236 (7) — Illegal Keeping — Prima Facie Evidence of Intent.

Under Acts 1915, p. 9, § 4, where a building was not used exclusively for a dwelling, the keeping therein of alcoholic liquors or beverages, forbidden by the laws of the state to be manufactured, sold, or otherwise disposed of, was prima facie evidence that the same was kept for sale or with intention to sell contrary to law.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Claud B. Jones was tried and convicted for a violation of an ordinance of the city of Montgomery prohibiting a violation of the prohibition laws of the state. He was convicted by the recorder, appealed to the circuit court of Montgomery county, and from a judgment of conviction in that court he appeals.

Affirmed.

L. A. Sanderson, of Montgomery, for appellant. Warren E. Andrews, of Montgomery, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J.

It was shown on the trial that two of the police officers of the city of Montgomery, on the 23d day of April, 1917, went into a room at 8% Washington street, in the city of Montgomery, upstairs, which room was being occupied by the defendant as a bedroom; that the room was over a vacant store in the second story of the building, and was entered from the street; that in the room at the time was found 48 bottles of beer, 12 of which were on ice and the remaining 36 were in a burean drawer in the room; that the ground floor was a vacant storeroom, unoccupied hut for rent, and that the second story of the building was used exclusively for bedrooms.

There was no one else present besides the defendant, who had on a former occasion been convicted for selling liquor. The building was not used exclusively for a dwelling, and therefore the keeping of liquors or beverages forbidden by the laws of the state to he manufactured, sold, or otherwise disposed of was prima facie evidence that the beer was kept for sale or with the intent to sell the same contrary to law. Acts 1915, p. 9, § 4. The other facts in the case were sufficient to warrant the judge in finding the defendant guilty.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
12/03/2012 08:02 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 02/03

1 2 3 4

6 ' 7

8 9 10 J.:t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4.9 50 5). 52 53 ROBERT SPITZER FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL CotJNSEL ]601 LlNDAVE., SW RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPBONE: 425/227-1417 FACSIMILE:**425/227~1007** 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS

.WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matter of: SkyWest Airlines, Inc. FAA DOCKET Not Assigned ;FAA Case No. 2011NM060005 DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0777 Judge Richard C. Goodwin



### NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thatthe Ulldersigned attomey hereby enters his Notice 

### of Appearance a.n.d di.r.ects that 

### all co.rrespon:dence be se:ot to:



### Robert Spitzer Office ofRegional Counsel Federal Aviation. Administration. 1601 Lind Avenu.e SW Renton, W A 98057 Phone: (425) 227-1417 Facsimile: (425) 

### 227-1007

DATED this 3rd day of**December~** 2012.

NOTICE QF' APPEARANCE Skywest Airlines- 20 11NM060005. F M-2012"0777 Page 1of2 Respectfully submitted:



### Rob'ert Spitzer Attorney 

### Federal Aviation Administration

ROBERT SPITZER, FAAArtORNEY TEL: 425

..227.1417: FAX: 425.227,1007i 12/03/2012 08:02 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 03/03

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

### u 12 13 14 15 l6 17 16 19 ?.0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Consolidate has been served via facsimile and certified mail • Return 

### Receipt Requested 

### this**date~** to the following:

NOTJCE OF**APPEARANC~** The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jetsey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 Washington, 

### D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2139 FAX: (202) 366-7536

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

### Wi.lbur Wright Building..:. Suite 

### 2Wl000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. SW. Washington, 

### DC 20591 

### FAX; (202) 493-5142
Todd Emerson, Esq. Sk.yWest Airlines

.. 444 S. Rjver Road St. George, UT 84790 TEL: (435) 634-3530 FAX: (435) 634-3505

].. KIRK , tee ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal AviationAdministration. 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, W A 98057 (425)**227~2007**

Skywest Airlines

- 20l 1 NM060005, F AA-20 12·0777 Pa.ge 2 of2**.ROJ3~n** SPITZER, FAAAITORNEY TEL:42S.:Z27.1417: FAX: 425.227.1007
#### § 784.143 “Necessary preparatory operations.”

All necessary preparatory work performed on the named aquatic products as an integral part of a single uninterrupted canning process is subject to section 13(b)(4) (see *Tobin* v. *Blue Channel Corp.,* 198 F. 2d 245, approved in *Mitchell* v. *Myrtle Grove Packing Co.,* 350 U.S. 891). Such activities conducted as essential and integrated steps in the continuous and uninterrupted process of canning are clearly within the definition of “canning” as contemplated by Congress and cannot be viewed in isolation from the canning process as a whole. Exempt preparatory operations include the necessary weighing, cleaning, picking, peeling, shucking, cutting, heating, cooling, steaming, mixing, cooking, carrying, conveying, and transferring to the containers the exempt aquatic products (see *Mitchell* v. *Stinson,* 217 F. 2d 214). But the preparatory operations do not include operations specified in section 13(a)(5) pertaining to the acquisition of the exempt products from nature. Therefore, if a canner employs fishermen or others to catch, take, harvest, cultivate or farm aquatic animal and vegetable life, section 13(a)(5) and not section 13(b)(4) would apply to these particular operations.
#### § 551.1 Statutory provision.

The following provision for exemption from the overtime pay provision is contained in section 13(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 213(b)):

(b) The provisions of section 7 shall not apply with respect to:

---

(11) any employee employed as a driver or driver's helper making local deliveries, who is compensated for such employment on the basis of trip rates, or other delivery payment plan, if the Secretary shall find that such plan has the general purpose and effect of reducing hours worked by such employees to, or below, the maximum workweek applicable to them under section 7(a).

Under this provision, an employee employed and compensated as described in the quoted paragraph (11) may be employed without payment of overtime compensation for a workweek longer than the maximum workweek applicable to him under section 7(a) of the Act, but only if it is established by a finding of the Secretary that the employee is compensated for his employment as a driver or driver's helper making local deliveries on the basis of trip rates or other delivery payment plan that has the general purpose and effect stated in section 13(b)(11). Such a finding is prescribed by the statute as one of the “explicit prerequisites to exemption”. (See *Arnold* v. *Kanowsky,* 361 U.S. 388, 392.)
§ 502.41 Decision and order of Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) The ALJ shall prepare, within 60 days after completion of the hearing and closing of the record, a decision on the issues referred by the Administrator, WHD.
( b ) The decision of the ALJ shall include a statement of findings and conclusions, with reasons and basis therefor, upon each material issue presented on the record. The decision shall also include an appropriate order which may affirm, deny, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the determination of the Administrator, WHD. The reason or reasons for such order shall be stated in the decision.
( c ) The decision shall be served on all parties and the Administrative Review Board (ARB) in person or by certified mail.
( d ) The decision concerning civil money penalties and/or back wages when served by the ALJ shall constitute the final agency order unless the ARB, as provided for in § 501.42, determines to review the decision.
An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A
              **.gov** website belongs to an official government
              organization in the United States.
        **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A
              **lock** (
              Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Skip navigation
  ADA HomeADA HistoryPart One: Origins of the ADAPart Two: Crafting the LawPart Three: The ADA Becomes LawAchieving the PromiseTools and TechHealth CareLearn, Work and PlayReal People
 Home
          ADA
          Renita Bundrage Renita Bundrage
 Renita Bundrage is President of People First of Georgia, a self-advocacy group for people with disabilities. Joined by her partner Al Lewis in this interview, Renita says the ADA allows her to be involved in her community and provides to many people with disabilities the opportunities they have today. Renita is proud of her independence and the work she does to advocate for herself and others.

                    *Last modified on 11/30/2021* Renita BundrageRenita Bundrage
 Back to Top    More on the ADA
  

        
      ACL's 31st Anniversary of the ADA page
                      ADA.gov
                      ADA National Network
                      #ThanksToTheADA campaignSITE SUPPORT
  

        
      Home
                      Accessibility
                      Contact Us
                      Disclaimers
                      Freedom of Information Act
                      Privacy policy
                      Site Map
                      Viewers and PlayersRELATED SITES
  

        
      Administration for Community Living
                      HHS Office for Civil Rights
                      Department of Health and Human Services
                      CMS: Access to Care
                      No Fear Act (on HHS.gov)
                      Plain Writing (on HHS.gov)
                      USA.gov
                      White House
#### Silas C. Ayres and Lewis Thompson *against*Benjamin Swayze.

ON CERTIORARI.

Contract to ecutíonSforeX" goods may be ©nforcGcl

Service of summons on one defendant. *(a)*

Appearance oi attorney ior defendant feeteS(b)e de"

FOR case, see opinion.

(a)

*Budd vs. Marvin, 1 South. 248*(a). *Murat vs. Hutchinson, 1 Har. 46.*

(b)

*Stediford vs. Ferris, 1 South. 109.*(a) *Cole vs. Williams, Pen. *558. McKelway ads. Jones, 2 Har. 345. Hillman vs. Harden, ante 575. Steward vs. Sears, 7 Vr. 175. -- vs. Campbell, Coxe 92. Houghton vs. Potter, 3 Zab. 338. Hunt vs. Allen, 2 Zab. 533. Snedeker vs. Quick, 6 Hal. 181.*

Southard J.

The case set out in the state of demand, Is as follows. *Ayers*and *Thompson*had obtained an execution against *Joseph Hoover,*for $62.62; and while it was yet in force and unsatisfied, they agreed to transfer it to *Swayze,*if he would deliver them 110 bushels of oats. He , . delivered the oats according to the agreement, and they refuse(j to transfer the execution. Upon this case, there * *7*was trial, verdict, and judgment for $70 ; and the plain-i*1 *certiorari*allege, that this judgment ought to be reversed, because the state of demand contains no lawful, cause of action; inasmuch, as the execution could not legally be transferred, and, therefore, the promise was not binding. But I do not perceive any difficulty in the case. It was lawful for *Swayze*to sell the oats; it was lawful for *Ayers*and *Thompson*to pay him either in money, or what, to him, would have been equivalent. • The right of receiving the money, upon this *fieri facias,*or of directing the officer in executing it, might have been of great value to the plaintiff below; at least equal to his oats. . And although there might have been a legal difficulty in their transferring the execution to him, so that he could maintain a suit founded on it; yet there was no legal difficulty in their transferring their right to receive the money made upon it, which is all *that I understand, is alleged by the case. I, therefore, see no defect in the demand.

The plaintiffs in *certiorari,*also rely upon the illegal service of the summons, inasmuch as the constable *937returns it “ served on the defendant, by his reading it himself, and no copy demanded.” But although this service might have been questioned where there were two defendants ; yet the defect, if any, is cured by the subsequent appearance of the defendants, by one of the attorneys of this court, his taking no notice of the defect, but proceeding to the trial.

Judgment affirmed.
*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 Rivera-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 review 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8405

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District 

Judge. (2:08-cv-03577-HMH-RSC) 

Submitted: November 9, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Julian Edward Rochester appeals the district court’s 

order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, dismissing 

the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and 

directing that the dismissal count as a “strike” under the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

(2006). Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Our review of the record convinces us 

that Rochester did not meet his burden of showing that he had no 

other adequate means to obtain the relief requested and that his 

right to relief was clear and indisputable. See In re: First 

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We 

therefore affirm the denial of Rochester’s mandamus petition. 

After the district court issued its decision, we held 

that the dismissal of an action without prejudice for failure to 

state a claim may not count as a “strike” under the PLRA. 

McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 395 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, the district court’s order is modified to reflect 

that the dismissal does not qualify as a strike. 

 We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 
3 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The 

motion to compel the State to discontinue discriminating against 

Appellant is denied. 

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
#### FRIEND v HILLIARD

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Hocking Co

Decided April 16, 1930

Edwin D- Ricketts, Logan, for Friend.

F.'N. R. Redfern, Adelphi, Eugene Wright, Logan, for Hilliard.

BLOSSER, J.

The defendant claims that the agreement was not clearly proven and that even if proven it comes within the statute of frauds and is not inforcible. After a consideration of the case we think that the parties made the agreement as claimed by the plaintiff, and that pursuant thereto she paid her share of the costs and gave the defendant a valuable right by dismissing her case number 6476. This was a sufficient consideration. 9 Ohio Jurisprudence, 301. She can not be restored to her former position if said agreement of compromise is not carried out. By tendering the defendant the agreed price of thirty dollars she was entitled to the deed for the roadway. We doubt if the statute of frauds is applicable to this case, but even tho it is applicable there was such p,art performance as to take the case oút of the statute and the plaintiff is entitled to have the agreement specifically performed.

Agreements or settlements and compromise are highly favored in law. Courts will in a proper case decree' specific performance of an agreement of compromise and settlement in accordance with the general rules and principles applying in the case of other contracts. 7 Ohio Jurisprudence 1010, Wright, 406, 12 C. J. 361, 5 R. C. L. 901. See also Weed et al v. Terry, 2 Douglas (Mich) 344.

A decree for specific performance may be entered in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

Middleton, FJ., and Mauck, J., concur.
§ 520.407 What is the subminimum wage for messengers and what must I do to comply with the terms of my certificate? ( a ) A messenger certificate, if issued, shall specify: ( 1 ) The subminimum wage rate of not less than 95 percent of the applicable minimum wage required by section 6(a) of the FLSA; and
( 2 ) The effective and expiration dates of the certificate.
( b ) The employer shall post a copy of the messenger certificate during its effective period in a conspicuous place where it can be readily seen by employees.
( c ) No messenger shall be hired under a messenger certificate while abnormal labor conditions such as a strike, lock-out, or other similar condition, exist.