alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
12/30/201 0 13:1 1 FAX202493514 2 FA A ^DM S 0003/00 6

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N -^i--.,*.^—•• % #r*r ^ 

## OFFIC E O FHEARING S 'Jf'ClHlVtL I WASHINGTON , D.C . X-.fc-V«rfc« I Wk.h ^ 

## DE C 2220 B I N TH E MATTE R O F i EARIN G DOCKE T FLIGHTSTA R AIRCRAF

TSERVICES , INC . FA ADOCKE TNO . CP10GL001 3 (Civi l PenaltyAction ) ':: ^ - - ^ DMSNO , FAA-2010-107 7 '"' , :::^^ § FA ACAS E NO . not currentl ydeterminabl e Administrativ e LawJudg e Richar d C . Goodwi n _ _oQ ^ 

# 0 siSr " C 3 C O 

## AGENCYMEMORANDU M O N VENU E No wCome s th e Agenc yi n accordanc e wit h th e Administrativ e La wJudge' s Procedura l Orde rDate d Novembe r30 , 2010 , an d state s th e following : Th e Responden tha s requeste d tha tth e venu e fo rthi s cas e b e Jacksonville . Florida . Th e Agenc yha s n o objectio n t o tha t location . Th e Agenc yha s advise d Responden t tha t i t woul d fil e thi s a s a join t respons e t o th e Judge' s Order , bu t ha s bee n unabl e t o confir m wit h Responden t tha t thi s i s acceptable . Additionally , th e partie s ar e activel yinvolve d i n settlemen t negotiation s o n thi s case , whic h woul d obviat e th e nee d t o obtai n hearin g facilities . Th e Agenc ybelieve s suc h negotiation s shoul d b e resolve d withi n th e nex t 3 0 days , an d recognize s it s obligatio n t o giv e timel ynotic e t o th e Administrativ e La wJudg e i fthos e negotiation s bea rfruit . Fo rth e Agenc y 

# M^^& . jSlen n L . Brow n Senio rAttorne y12/30/201 0 13:1 2 FA X202483514 2 FA A * DM S @1004/00 e

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertifytha tth e foregoin g pleadin g ha s bee n maile d thi s dat e byCertifie d Mail , Retur n Receip t Requested , to : Origina l an d On e Copy : Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S . W , Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t Cler k AGC-430 , Wilbe rWrigh t Buildin g Suit e 2W100 0 On e COPY : Honorabl e Richar d C . Goodwi n Administrativ e La wJudg e Offic e o fHearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue . S.E . Eas t Building , Groun d Floor , Roo m E-12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Gregor yS . Winton , Esq . Th e Aviatio n LawFir m On e Researc h Court , Suit e 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 Facsimil e 30 1 29 4 252 5 Date d thi s 16t h dayo fDecember , 2010 .

FA AGrea t Lake s
Opinion issued August 15 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00125
- CR

——————————— THOMAS LEE MCDANIEL , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1527579

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Thomas Lee McDaniel, Jr., has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 (a). See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.2(a). The State has not opposed this motion. We have not issued a decision in the appeal

.2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Count iss

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
February 20, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT EARL ADAMS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00768-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as rendered, which is 

capable of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is MODIFIED to 

delete the listing of a specific amount of court costs. The Court orders the 

judgment AFFIRMED as MODIFIED. We further order this decision certified 

below for observance.
#### § 531.28 Restrictions applicable where payment is not in cash or its equivalent.

It appears to have been the clear intention of Congress to protect the basic minimum wage and overtime compensation required to be paid to the employee by sections 6 and 7 of the Act from profiteering or manipulation by the employer in dealings with the employee. Section 3(m) of the Act and subpart B of this part accordingly prescribe certain limitations and safeguards which control the payment of wages in other than cash or its equivalent. (Special recordkeeping requirements must also be met. These are contained in part 516 of this chapter.) These provisions, it should be emphasized, do not prohibit payment of wages in facilities furnished either as additions to a stipulated wage or as items for which deductions from the stipulated wage will be made; they prohibit only the use of such a medium of payment to avoid the obligation imposed by sections 6 and 7.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DESHONE Q’MAR COPELAND,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1651

[August 10, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 562015CF000189A 

and 562012CF003648A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of the defendant’s probation and resulting 

sentences in all respects, except for the trial court’s imposition of $50 in 

investigative costs and $200 in prosecution costs. We accept the state’s 

concession of error as to the imposition of these costs because the state 

did not request that the investigative costs be imposed on behalf of the 

investigating agency pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes 

(2019), and the prosecution costs exceed the maximum amount that can 

be imposed without “a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred” 

as required by section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2019).

As to the investigative costs, “[t]rial courts cannot impose investigative 

costs ‘where the record does not demonstrate that the state requested 

reimbursement for these costs.’ If these costs are not requested by the 

state, they must be stricken and cannot be imposed on remand.” 

Bartolone v. State, 327 So. 3d 331, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quoting 

Desrosiers v. State, 286 So. 3d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); see also § 

938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2019) (“investigative costs incurred by law 
2

enforcement agencies” may be imposed only “if requested by such 

agencies” (emphasis added)). Thus, we strike the imposition of $50 in 

investigative costs.

As to the prosecution costs, the “[c]osts for the state attorney must be 

set in all cases at no less than . . . $100 per case when a felony offense is 

charged,” and “[t]he court may set a higher amount upon a showing of 

sufficient proof of higher costs incurred.” § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2019). 

As we did in Bartolone, “[w]e therefore reverse the prosecution costs and 

remand for the trial court to impose $100 in accordance with statute, or 

to impose additional costs if sufficient findings are made.” 327 So. 3d at 

336 (quoting Guadagno v. State, 291 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

WARNER, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NUMBER 13-07-00649-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

DENIS A. DOWNEY, Appellant,

v.

BEATRIZ MORENO DOWNEY , Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 197th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Denis A. Downey, attempted to appeal a judgment rendered against him

in the 197th District Court of Cameron County. On October 24, 2007, the Clerk of this

Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal had not been timely filed. The Clerk of

this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect,
2

if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the

defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal

would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s

notice. Appellant has further failed to pay required fees as directed by the Clerk of this

Court.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's

failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant's failure to respond to this Court's notices,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See id. 42.3(a),(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 10th day of April, 2008.
#### § 779.339 More than 50 percent intrastate sales required.

The first test specified in section 13 (a)(2) is that more than 50 percent of the sales of goods or of services (or of both) of a “retail or service establishment” (Measured by annual dollar volume) must be made “within the State in which the establishment is located”. This limitation means that such establishment must be primarily engaged (more than 50 percent) in selling to or serving customers within its State. If the establishment is engaged to the extent of 50 percent or more in selling to or serving customers outside the State of its location, the requirement is not met and the establishment cannot qualify for exemption.
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust VI and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding VI, L.P. (the
"Partnership") for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of
the Partnership, 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING VI, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: May 12, 2006
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### § 776.5 Coverage not dependent on method of compensation.

The Act's individual employee coverage is not limited to employees working on an hourly wage. The requirements of section 6 as to minimum wages are that “each” employee described therein shall be paid wages at a rate not less than a specified rate “an hour”.[15] This does not mean that employees cannot be paid on a piecework basis or on a salary, commission, or other basis; it merely means that whatever the basis on which the workers are paid, whether it be monthly, weekly, or on a piecework basis, they must receive at least the equivalent of the minimum hourly rate. “Each” and “any” employee obviously and necessarily includes one compensated by a unit of time, by the piece, or by any other measurement.[16] Regulations prescribed by the Administrator (part 516 of this chapter) provide for the keeping of records in such form as to enable compensation on a piecework or other basis to be translated into an hourly rate.[17]

[35 FR 5543, Apr. 3, 1970]

###### Footnotes -
  776.5

[15] Special exceptions are made for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

[16] *United States* v. *Rosenwasser,* 323 U.S. 360.

[17] For methods of translating other forms of compensation into an hourly rate for purposes of sections 6 and 7, see parts 531 and 778 of this chapter.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00530

- CR

Roberto Cardenas v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 4064

- 11

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 19, 2015
EXHIBIT (23)
                                     -60-



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



      We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of TRINOVA Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1995, of our
report dated January 24, 1996, included in Exhibit 13 to Form 10-K.

      Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of TRINOVA
Corporation listed in Item 14(a)(2).  This schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

      We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-9127 on Form S-3 dated August
28, 1987, and in the related Prospectus dated April 21, 1992; Registration
Statement No. 33-19555 on Form S-3 dated January 15, 1988, and in the related
Prospectus; Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement No.
33-14682 on Form S-8 dated April 28, 1989; Registration Statement No. 33-28638
on Form S-8 dated May 10, 1989; Registration Statement No. 33-54059 on Form
S-8 dated June 10, 1994; and Registration Statement No. 33-55399 on Form S-8
dated September 8, 1994, of our report dated January 24, 1996, with respect to
the financial statements of TRINOVA Corporation incorporated herein by
reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to
the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
TRINOVA Corporation.




                                          /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Toledo, Ohio
March 14, 1996
#### § 784.101 The section 13(b)(4) exemption.

Section 13(b)(4) grants an exemption only from the overtime requirements of the Act and applies to “any employee employed in the canning, processing, marketing, freezing, curing, storing, packing for shipment, or distributing of any kind of fish shellfish, or other aquatic forms of animal or vegetable life, or any byproduct thereof.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                          5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of MCI Communications Corporation and Subsidiaries at December 31, 1995
and the income statement for the year ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                     0000064079
<NAME>                                    MCI Communications Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1,000,000
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                                           471
<SECURITIES>                                                     373
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  2,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     260
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               4,505
<PP&E>                                                        15,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 5,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                19,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          4,870
<BONDS>                                                        3,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                          74
<OTHER-SE>                                                     9,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  19,301
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              15,265
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 14,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  897
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              548
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     548
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.80
        


</TABLE>
#### § 783.26 The section 6(b)(2) minimum wage requirement.

Section 6(b), with paragraph (2) thereof, requires the employer to pay to an employee, “if such employee is employed as a seaman on an American vessel, not less than the rate which will provide to the employee, for the period covered by the wage payment, wages equal to compensation at the hourly rate prescribed by paragraph (1) of this subsection for all hours during such period when he was actually on duty (including periods aboard ship when the employee was on watch or was, at the direction of a superior officer, performing work or standing by, but not including off-duty periods which are provided pursuant to the employment agreement).” The “hourly rate prescribed by” paragraph (1) of the subsection is the minimum wage rate applicable according to the schedule shown in § 783.23.
Exhibit
32.1





STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Kathleen M. Jepson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.





/s/Kathleen
M. Jepson


Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


May 24,
2010
§ 9.21 Complaints. ( a ) *Filing a complaint.* Any employee of the predecessor contractor who believes the successor contractor has violated this part, or their authorized representative, may file a complaint with the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) within 120 days from the first date of contract performance. The employee or authorized representative may file a complaint directly with any office of the WHD. No particular form of complaint is required. A complaint may be filed orally or in writing. The WHD will accept the complaint in any language.
( b ) *Confidentiality.* It is the policy of the Department of Labor to protect the identity of its confidential sources and to prevent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Accordingly, the identity of any individual who makes a written or oral statement as a complaint or in the course of an investigation, as well as portions of the statement which would tend to reveal the individual's identity, will not be disclosed in any manner to anyone other than Federal officials without the prior consent of the individual. Disclosure of such statements will be governed by the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, *see* 29 CFR part 70) and the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).