this correspondence is not part of the record in this case. It was not presented to the district court and is not part of the public record. Therefore, consideration would be inconsistent with 11th Circuit Rule 30-1 ("Appeals from the district courts ... shall be on the original record ...”). 13 . The court states that "[t]his position has been taken by the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor, and this position is reasonable.” Torreblanca v. Naas Foods, Inc., No. F 78-163, 1980 WL 2100, at *5 (N.D.Ind. Feb. 25, 1980). The court does not stale what represents the position of the Wage and Hour Division, but as it does not cite to the Code of Federal Regulations, it appears that the court is considering opinion letters. 06 F.Supp. 1302, 1309 (E.D.Pa.1976) (<HOLDING>). 17 . The Growers assert that the
holding that the cost of lodging on the ship is not includable as wages for sleeping on the vessel was primarily for the benefit and convenience of the employer holding that the portion of the retirementplan annuity paid for by the employer but not the portion paid for by the employee  is includable in the marital estate  holding under indiana law that profits are not wages and neither is a fraction of profits wages and so a bonus that is based on the performance of a plant rather than on the time or determinable output of the employee is not wages either holding that lodging of a stationary engineer could not be deducted from wages because his residing at the complex was primarily for the benefit of the employer holding that the value of meals and lodging that are tax exempt under  119 is excluded from wages under the lhwca