alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 779.403 Administrative and executive employees in covered enterprises employed in other than retail or service establishments.

The up-to-40 percent tolerance for nonexecutive or nonadministrative duties discussed in the preceding section, does not apply to executive or administrative employees of an establishment other than a “retail or service establishment.” For example, an executive or administrative employee of a central office or a central warehouse of a chain store system is not an employee of a “retail or service establishment,” and therefore must still devote not more than 20 percent of his hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of executive or administrative duties in order to qualify as a bona fide executive or administrative employee under section 13(a)(1), except where special provisions are made in the regulations issued under that section of the Act.
Grafton

No. 6418

#### Raymond Johnson v. Philip Martignetti

November 30, 1973

*609
      *Shaw & Eldredge (Mr. Robert Shaw*orally) for the plaintiff.

*David B. Shepatin,*by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Per curiam.

By this action of assumpsit the plaintiff seeks to recover the cost of filling a cellar hole on his property in Bethlehem which he alleges the defendant had agreed to fill, provided the plaintiff allowed a third party to whom the defendant had sold certain salvageable materials to first remove them from the cellar hole. There was evidence that the defendant had originally acquired title to the materials from the prior owner of the real estate in consideration of the defendant’s agreement to fill the cellar hole. Trial by jury before *Johnson,*J., resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Following the verdict the defendant moved to set it aside upon the ground that as a matter of law the alleged agreement between parties to the action was not binding upon the defendant because oral and without consideration and because there was no privity of contract between the parties.

The record of the trial discloses that the defendant made no motion for a nonsuit or for a directed verdict, and saved no exception to the instructions to the jury. At the close of the charge, counsel representing the defendant at the trial sought additional instructions to emphasize the point that if the defendant “only had an agreement with [the prior owner] and did not have a reaffirmation of that agreement, then they should find for the defendant.” Additional instructions were then given with which defendant’s counsel indicated satisfaction. Thus it appears that the motion to set aside the verdict presented no question of law which had been previously raised at the trial and saved by exception. It follows that the exception to the denial of the motion to set the verdict aside presents no question of law for decision by this court. *Bennett v. Larose,*82 N.H. 443, 136 A. 254 *610(1926); *Stabrow v. Stabrow,*96 N.H. 74, 75, 69 A.2d 863, 864-65 (1949); *Velishka v. Laurendeau,*100 N.H. 46, 118 A.2d 600 (1955).

*Judgment on the verdict.*
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

National Defense University, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The National Defense University (NDU), Designated Federal Officer, has scheduled a meeting of the Board of Visitors. The National Defense University Board of Visitors is a Federal Advisory Board. The Board meets twice each year in proceedings that are open to the public.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on October 27, 2011 from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and continues on October 28, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The Board of Visitors meeting will be held at Marshall Hall, Building 62, Room 155, the National                               ( print page 50721)                            Defense University, 300 5th Avenue, SW., Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20319-5066.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The point of contact for this notice is Ms. Dolores Hodge, phone: (202) 685-0082, Fax (202) 685-3920 or e-mail:                         *HodgeD@ndu.edu.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The future agenda will include discussion on Defense transformation, faculty development, facilities, information technology, curriculum development, as well as other operational issues and areas of interest affecting the day-to-day operations of the National Defense University and its components. The meeting is open to the public; limited space made available for observers will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Written statements to the committee may be submitted to the committee at any time or in response to a stated planned meeting agenda by FAX or e-mail to the point of contact person listed in                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                    . (Subject Line: Comment/Statement to the NDU BOV).                

Dated: August 11, 2011.

Aaron Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011-20802 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### § 502.7 Accuracy of information, statements, data.

Information, statements and data submitted in compliance with provisions of the Act or these regulations are subject to 18 U.S.C. 1001, which provides, with regard to statements or entries generally, that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the U.S. knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Summa Industries (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Swartwout, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  | /s/JAMES R. SWARTWOUTJames R. Swartwout Chief Executive
Officer
Chief Financial OfficerSumma Industries
October 25, 2002
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40546 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DANIEL ESCOBAR

- ROJAS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 511

- 1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Daniel Escobar

- Rojas raises

an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez, 711

F.3d 541

, 562

- 63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc) , in which we held that the generic,

contemporary definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” does not require that the

age of consent be below 17 years old. The motion for summary disposition is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

December 1 5 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40546 Document: 00513308097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
EXHIBIT 10(u)(2)



LEASE AMENDMENT



This agreement amends the lease agreement between Doug Hughes Properties, LLC (Landlord) and Cybex International, Inc. (Tenant) dated July 21, 2005
as follows:



To Paragraph 16 will be added as 16(c):

Doug Hughes Properties, LLC agrees to be available to Cybex to assist in developing and analyzing facility options.



Paragraph 16(b) will be deleted, eliminating Tenants option to repurchase the property.



|                                          |  |                          |  |                               
|----------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------------------------
|TENANT                                    |  |                         
|                                          |  |                         
|By:                                       |  | /s/ Arthur W. Hicks, Jr. |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
|Corporate Name: Cybex International, Inc. |  | Date: 12/23/2005        



|                                            |  |                       |  |                 
|------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------
|LANDLORD                                    |  |                      
|                                            |  |                      
|By:                                         |  | /s/ Douglas W. Hughes |  | Title: President
|Corporate Name: Doug Hughes Properties, LLC |  | Date: 12/23/2005
§ 780.133 Farmers' cooperative as a “farmer.” ( a ) The phrase “by a farmer” covers practices performed either by the farmer himself or by the farmer through his employees. Employees of a farmers' cooperative association, however, are employed not by the individual farmers who compose its membership or who are its stockholders, but by the cooperative association itself. Cooperative associations whether in the corporate form or not, are distinct, separate entities from the farmers who own or compose them. The work performed by a farmers' cooperative association is not work performed “by a farmer” but for farmers. Therefore, employees of a farmers' cooperative association are not generally engaged in any practices performed “by a farmer” within the meaning of section 3(f) (*Farmers Reservoir Co.* v. *McComb,* 337 U.S. 755; *Goldberg* v. *Crowley Ridge Ass'n.,* 295 F. 2d 7; *McComb* v. *Puerto Rico Tobacco Marketing Co-op Ass'n.,* 80 F. Supp. 953, 181 F. 2d 697). The legislative history of the Act supports this interpretation. Statutes usually cite farmers' cooperative associations in express terms if it is intended that they be included. The omission of express language from the Fair Labor Standards Act is significant since many unsuccessful attempts were made on the floor of Congress to secure special treatment for such cooperatives.
( b ) It is possible that some farmers' cooperative associations may themselves engage in actual farming operations to an extent and under circumstances sufficient to qualify as a “farmer.” In such case, any of their employees who perform practices as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations are employed in “agriculture.”
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20648]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

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
(74 South. 1006)

#### BATES v. STATE.

(6 Div. 241.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 1917.)

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge. Mattie Bates was convicted of manslaughter, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was indicted for murder, and was convicted of manslaughter. The indictment follows the form prescribed by the statute, and the proceedings of the court shown by the record appear to be regular. Further than this, nothing is presented for review, and the judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32


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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wizzard Software Corporation
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB-A1 for the period ending March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Christopher J. Spencer, President, CEO and Treasurer
of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Date: 6/16/05                             /s/ Christopher J. Spencer
                                         ---------------------------
                                         Christopher J. Spencer
                                         President, CEO, Treasurer and
                                         director
§ 4903.18 Will a debtor who owes a debt to PBGC or another Federal agency, and persons controlled by or controlling such debtors, be ineligible for Federal loan assistance, grants, cooperative agreements, or other sources of Federal funds? ( a ) Delinquent debtors are ineligible for and barred from obtaining Federal loans or loan insurance or guaranties. As required by 31 U.S.C. 3720B and 31 CFR 901.6, PBGC will not extend financial assistance in the form of a loan, loan guarantee, or loan insurance to any person delinquent on a debt owed to a Federal agency. PBGC may issue standards under which it may determine that persons controlled by or controlling such delinquent debtors are similarly ineligible in accordance with 31 CFR 285.13(c)(2). This prohibition does not apply to disaster loans. PBGC may extend credit after the delinquency has been resolved. *See* 31 CFR 285.13.
( b ) This section does not apply to loans provided to multi-employer pension plans pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1431, 29 CFR 4261.1 and 4281.47.
( c ) A debtor who has a judgment lien against the debtor's property for a debt to the United States is not eligible to receive grants, loans or funds directly or indirectly from the United States until the judgment is paid in full or otherwise satisfied. This prohibition does not apply to funds to which the debtor is entitled as beneficiary. PBGC may promulgate regulations to allow for waivers of this ineligibility. *See* 28 U.S.C. 3201(e).
#### § 779.211 Status of activities which are not “related.”

Activities which are not related even if performed by the same employer are not included as a part of the enterprise. The receipts from the unrelated activities will not be counted toward the annual dollar volume of sales or business under section 3(s) and the employees performing such unrelated activities will not be covered merely because they work for the same employer. Common ownership standing alone does not bring unrelated activities within the scope of the same enterprise. If, for example, one individual owns or controls a bank, a filing station, and a factory, the mere fact of common ownership will not make them one enterprise. However, if it appears that there is a reasonable relationship of all the activities to a single business purpose a different conclusion might be warranted. Activities which are not “related” will be treated separately for purposes of the tests contained in section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act and section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act. For example, in the case where a single company operates retail grocery stores and also engages in an unrelated business of constructing homes, one “enterprise” for purposes of section 3(s)(1) of both the prior and the amended Act will consist of the retail grocery stores and any activities related to them, and home construction activities will constitute a separate enterprise. The latter will not be included in determining whether the retail business enterprise meets the conditions of section 3(s)(1), and the construction employees will not be covered merely because the retail business is covered. The construction business will be considered separately under section 3(s)(4) of the poor Act and section 3(s)(3) of the amended Act.
791 A.2d 1152

#### Purcell BRONSON, Appellant v. Martin F. HORN, Ms. Toski, Tim Collins, Philip Johnson, F. Crytzer, Appellees.

No. 167 MAP 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 6, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2002, the above captioned appeal is quashed.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 185 

Supporting the ideals and values of the Olympic Movement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. STEVENS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

JUNE 20, 2007 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the ideals and values of the Olympic Movement. 

Whereas, for over 100 years, the Olympic Movement has built 

a more peaceful and better world by educating young 

people through athletics, by bringing together athletes 

from many countries in friendly competition, and by forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity, 

sportsmanship, and fair play; 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee is dedicated 

to coordinating and developing athletic activity in the 

United States to foster productive working relationships 

among sports-related organizations; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

SRES 185 ATS 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee promotes and 

supports athletic activities involving the United States 

and foreign countries; 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee promotes and 

encourages physical fitness and public participation in 

athletic activities; 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee assists organizations and persons concerned with sports in the development of athletic programs for able-bodied and disabled 

athletes regardless of age, race, or gender; 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee protects the 

opportunity of each athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator, and official to participate in athletic competition; 

Whereas athletes representing the United States at the Olympic Games have achieved great success personally and for 

the Nation; 

Whereas thousands of men and women of the United States 

are focusing their energy and skill on becoming part of 

the United States Olympic Team and aspire to compete 

in the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China; 

Whereas the Nation takes great pride in the qualities of commitment to excellence, grace under pressure, and good 

will toward other competitors exhibited by the athletes of 

the United States Olympic Team; and 

Whereas June 23, 2007, is the anniversary of the founding 

of the Modern Olympic Movement, representing the date 

on which the Congress of Paris approved the proposal of 

Pierre de Coubertin to found the Modern Olympic 

Games: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

SRES 185 ATS 

1 (1) supports the ideals and values of the Olym2 pic Movement; and 

3 (2) calls upon the people of the United States 

4 to observe the anniversary of the founding of the 

5 Modern Olympic Movement with appropriate cere6 monies and activities. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### § 779.252 Not in deliveries from the reselling establishment.

Goods which move across State lines only in the course of deliveries from the reselling establishment of the enterprise are not included as goods which “move or have moved across State lines.” Thus, goods delivered by the enterprise to its customers outside of the State are not, for that reason, considered goods which “move or have moved across State lines.” The purpose of the provision excepting “deliveries from the reselling establishment” is to limit the test to goods which flow into the enterprise and to exclude those goods which only cross State lines when they flow out of the enterprise as an incident of the sale of such goods by the enterprise. In other words, this is an inflow test and not an outflow test.