alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4126

___________

Sam Dean, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED]

Company, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 21, 2005

Filed: October 28, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sam Dean appeals the district court’s1

 adverse judgment in his Employment

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action against Hartford Life & Accident

Insurance Company (Hartford). Dean’s long-term-disability (LTD) benefits were

discontinued in October 2002 after Hartford determined he no longer qualified. 
-2-

This court reviews de novo the district court’s application of the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. See Norris v. Citibank, N.A. Disability Plan, 308 F.3d 880, 883-

84 (8th Cir. 2002) (under abuse-of-discretion standard, proper inquiry is whether

administrator’s decision was reasonable, i.e., supported by substantial evidence);

Cash v. Wal-Mart Group Health Plan, 107 F.3d 637, 641 (8th Cir. 1997) (review

under deferential standard is limited to evidence before administrator). 

We conclude that Hartford was not required to give controlling weight to Dr.

Thomas Bailey’s November 2001 opinion as to Dean’s work-related abilities: the

opinion was generated almost a year before the determination at issue was made; and

it was inconsistent with Dr. Bailey’s subsequent discussions with a Hartford medical

director, with an August 2002 functional capacity evaluation, with Dr. Bailey’s

treatment records, and with diagnostic test results. See Black & Decker Disability

Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 825, 834 (2003) (ERISA plan administrators are not

required to credit treating physician’s opinions over other evidence relevant to

claimant’s condition); McGee v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 921, 924-

25 (8th Cir. 2004) (it is not unreasonable to deny benefits based upon lack of

objective medical evidence). 

Dean’s challenges to the employability analysis also fail. As the district court

pointed out, under the language of the LTD benefit plan at issue here, Dean could

continue receiving benefits so long as he was prevented from doing “any” occupation

or work for which he could become qualified by training, education, or experience,

see Cash, 107 F.3d at 641 (in determining if interpretation of plan is reasonable, court

should consider whether, inter alia, interpretation is contrary to clear language of

plan); and in any event, Dean presented nothing supporting his assertion that the

specified jobs were not available locally, and Dean’s claim of right upper-extremity

problems was not supported by objective medical evidence and was inconsistent with

other evidence. 
-3-

Dean has provided no other basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1



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 quarterly report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dennis McGuire, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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 results of operations of the Company.





|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dennis McGuire                                                  
|Dennis McGuire
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



Dated: August 14, 2009
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We hereby consent to the use of our report,dated March 1, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements ofGB&T Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three years ended December31, 2004, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and incorporated byreference in the previously filed Registration Statements of GB&TBancshares, Inc. on Form S-3D (File Number 333-64197), Form S-8 (File Number333-102666) and Form S-8 (File Number 333-121979).

 

 
|             | /s/ Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC |   |
|------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|             |                           |   |
|             |                           |   |
| Atlanta, Georgia |                           |   |
| March 14, 2005   |                           |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Global Crossing Limited (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Legere, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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/    John J. Legere  
|John J. Legere         
|Chief Executive Officer
|February 23, 2010
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 26, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     “the Act”), OBI Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Chase Manhatten Bank, Brooklyn, NY; and Itec AB, Stockholm, Sweden have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ has been dropped as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OBI Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On September 10, 1997, OBI Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 1997 (62 FR 60531).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 23, 1999. A notice has not yet been published in the                    **Federal Register.**

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-10604  Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1600

SHELLY LYNN BALTGALVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING, INCORPORATED, and

its subsidiary; NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND

DRY DOCK COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-55)

Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shelly Lynn Baltgalvis, Appellant Pro Se. Dean C. Berry, NEWPORT

NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO., Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Shelly Lynn Baltgalvis appeals from the district court’s

orders granting summary judgment to Newport News Shipbuilding,

Incorporated and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and order and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Baltgalvis v. Newport News Shipbuilding,

Inc., No. CA-00-55 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23 and Mar. 28, 2001). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)





Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Unit
Corporation a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 and for the three month
periods ended March 31, 2008 and 2007.








Dated:
May 6, 2008





By: /s/ Larry D.
Pinkston


Larry D.
Pinkston


Chief
Executive Officer








Dated:
May 6, 2008





By: /s/ David T.
Merrill


David T.
Merrill


Chief
Financial Officer and


Treasurer








The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been
provided to Unit Corporation and will be retained by Unit Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff on
request.
#### Smead, Collard & Hughes *v.*Fay & Bradley

1. A judgment will not be set aside, on ashowing of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest. -

2. An agent may bring an action in his own name, on negotiable paper, if he holds the possession and the legal title at the time, although in trust for another; the defendant can not prevent judgment by setting up the fact that the property is in another.

Special Term. — On motion, by defendant Eay, to set aside a confessed judgment, rendered on a judgment note with power of attorney, made by the defendants to the plaintiffs. It appears that the plaintiffs, at the time of their failure in the banking business, on September 14, 1857, held the note of Mr. Bradley, payable thirty days after May 29, 1857; that on the 20th of that month, the plaintiffs indorsed it, in blank, without recourse, to John H. Armstrong in payment of a debt owing to him by the plaintiffs; that afterward, on October 9, at Armstrong’s request, the plaintiffs took a retransfer of the note, for the sole purpose of enabling Armstrong to get judgment against Eay & Bradley, in the name of the plaintiffs; that judgment was accordingly taken and transferred to Armstrong without recourse upon plaintiffs.

*Abram*Brower, for plaintiffs.

*W. M. Bateman,*for defendants.

Storer, J.

The judgment in this case was rendered upon a warrant of attorney. The debt was due at the time, and the note representing it in the plaintiffs’ possession. ¥e are now asked to setthe judgment aside, on the ground thatthe equitable ownership of the note was held by a third person when the judgment was confessed. It is clear that an agent may bring an action in his own name on negotiable paper, if in his possession at the time, and he holds the legal title, although in *532trust for another; and the defendant can not prevent judgment by setting up the fact that the property is in another.

No one can complain but the principal. Our code requires all suits to be brought in the name of the real party interested ; hut if the case goes into judgment, no one can complain, though another party was entitled to the benefit; and if, after judgment, as in this case, it has been trasferred to the equitable owner, no rule of law is violated, nor are their rights impaired.

All have their relative interests thus secured, and there can be no reason to set the judgment aside..

Motion overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 7
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                               969,121
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                    0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                      0
<EQUITIES>                                         177,758
<MORTGAGE>                                               0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                            0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                   1,194,261
<CASH>                                               3,234
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 349,259
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                              49,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,822,604
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                    646,442
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                398,293
<POLICY-OTHER>                                           0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                    0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                          0
<COMMON>                                               340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                         462,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,822,604
<PREMIUMS>                                         257,040
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                 39,273
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   1,446
<OTHER-INCOME>                                           0
<BENEFITS>                                         137,339
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         56,986
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                35,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     59,324
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16,354
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 42,081
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        42,081
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.26
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                     373,779
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                177,938
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                        0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                  28,113
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                   117,993
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                    386,284
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                             18,815
        



</TABLE>
§ 1261.110 Settlement of claims. ( a ) *Settlement officials.* ( 1 ) Claims in the amount of $5,000 or more will be acted upon by the General Counsel. Claims less than $5,000 will be acted upon by the Chief Counsel of the NASA Field Installation where the employee was assigned at the time of the loss or damage or the Assistant General Counsel for Litigation for NASA Headquarters claims.
( 2 ) Claims arising for $5,000 or more shall be investigated by the Chief Counsel or Assistant General Counsel for Litigation, as appropriate, and a report and recommendation thereon shall be forwarded to the General Counsel.
( b ) *Action by settlement official.* ( 1 ) For each claim, the settlement official shall complete a report in duplicate on NASA Form 1204 and retain a claim file consisting of the original claim, the report, and any other relevant evidence or documents.
( 2 ) When a claim is allowed in an amount acceptable to the claimant, the settlement official shall prepare a “Voucher for Payment of Employees' Personal Property Claims” (NASA Form 1220), have it properly executed by the claimant, and forward it with a copy of the approved claim (NASA Form 1204) to the appropriate NASA fiscal or financial management office for payment.
( 3 ) When a claim is disallowed or is partially allowed in an amount unacceptable to the claimant, the settlement official shall notify the claimant in writing of the action taken and the reasons therefor. If not satisfied with the action taken, the claimant may, within 60 days after receipt of such notice, request reconsideration of the claim and may submit any new evidence that he/she feels to be pertinent to the claim. If such a claim has been disallowed at the field installation level, the claimant may request reconsideration by the field installation, or by the General Counsel, or both.
( c ) *Final and conclusive.* The settlement of a claim under this subpart, whether by full or partial allowance or disallowance, is final and conclusive.
## MAYO·· 

# CLINIC



# COJ

August 9, 2012

Ms. AlohaLey Associate Director Office ofAviation Analysis gth Floor, Room W86-310, 1200NewJersey Ave, SE Washington D.C. 20590 

### '' 1Lt 

# ;;:

# ., 200 First StreetSW Rochester, Minnesota 55905 ·· 507-284-2511



### John H. Noseworthy, M.D. Presidentand ChiefExecutive Officer

Subject: Rochester International Airport small community air service development grantapplication , 

### ' Dear Ms. Ley, Safe, efficient and reliable transportation options arecritical to the ongoing success and growth ofMayo Clinic, the largest private employer in Minnesota and a world renowned medical centerwhich generates over $22 billion in economic impactnationwide, including $9.6 billion in Minnesota. Unlike othermajor medical centers in the US, Mayo Clinic in Rochester is the only one not located in a majormetropolitan area. Over halfofthe 1.5 million patientvisits to Rochester involve patients who live more than 200 miles from Rochester, including all 50 states and over 50 foreign countries. Mayo Clinic is verydependent on local air service for both ourpatients and staffto support our local, nationwide and global operations. Local air service is essential for a positive patient experience for those traveling to Rochester from great distances. Our staff, as well as visiting physicians and scientists, rely on air service as they come to Rochester ortravel the worldto learn and share the latest advances in health and wellness.
We are fortunate to have two major air carriers (Delta and American Airlines) serve RochesterInternational Airport. However, Deltahas significantly reduced our daily flight schedule and**Americ~** Airlines is now in bankruptcy. As a result, Rochester air service has declined by a third in the past four years. Atthis rate of decline, by airport management company projections, the viability ofthe airportwillbe in**jeopard~** in 2-3 years.
Rochester International Airport has submitted a Small Community Air Service Development Grantin response to the Departments request for proposals under Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069. This $500,000 grant request will he combined with $200,000 in local non-airport funding to recruit critically needednew air service. We fully support this application and will work closely with the Airport and other members ofthe community to ensure these dollars are used wisely and successfully. Rochester, Minnesota is one ofthe most prosperous small market economies in the Midwest. As a community business leader, I urge you to award Rochester International Airportthis grant as a vital component ofour community's airportrevitalization strategy so we can continue to be an economic engine for the state, region and nation.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.5    
  


TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN

NOTICE OF PARTICIPATION  


        This Notice of Participation Agreement ("Notice of Participation") is entered into this 21st day of March 2003 by and between Tanning Technology
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation ("Tanning") and Mark Teflian ("Participant"). The Notice of Participation is subject to and governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Change in Control
Plan ("Plan") adopted by the Tanning Board of Directors on March 18, 2003. 


COMPENSATION UPON TERMINATION  


        Upon a termination of your employment as set forth in Article IV, Section 1, of the Plan, you shall be entitled to the following benefits: 



Severance Payment: In lieu of the severance benefits identified in Article IV, Section 1(a), of the Plan, and subject to the terms and
conditions of Article IV, Section 1(a), the severance payments identified in Section 4 of your Employee Term Sheet attached to your Employment Agreement dated June 14,
2001. 


Continuation of Medical Coverage under COBRA: If you elect to participate in COBRA benefits continuation, the Company shall pay or shall reimburse you
(to the extent you have previously made payments), to the extent COBRA benefits are available, your monthly premiums for your elected level of group medical insurance for up to 6 months of
continued coverage of your then-currently elected level of benefit. 




Agreed
and accepted: 



	
Tanning Technology Corporation	
 	

Participant
	

By:	
 	

Gregory A. Conley	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ Mark S. Teflian
	 	 	
	 	 	 	

	 	 	Signature	 	 	 	Signature
	

 	
 	

Gregory A. Conley	
 	

 	
 	

Mark Teflian
	
	 	

	 	 	Printed Name	 	 	 	Printed Name
	

 	
 	

President, CEO & COO	
 	

 	
 	

March 31, 2003
	
	 	

	 	 	Title	 	 	 	Date
	

 	
 	

March 31, 2003	
 	

 	
 	

 
	
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Date	 	 	 	 














QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.5