alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC (the Fund) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009 as furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers
of the Fund hereby certifies, 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 Fund.

| |        |             |     |        |  |                                                      
| | ------ | ----------- | --- | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| | Dated: | May 7, 2009 |     |        |  | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY T FUND, LLC                         
| |        |             |     |        |  |                                                      
| |        |             | By: | /s/    |  | ROBERT E.
 SWANSON                                   
| |        |             |     |        |  |                                                      
| |        |             |     | Name:  |  | Robert E.
 Swanson                                   
| |        |             |     | Title: |  | President
 and Chief Executive Officer               
| |        |             |     |        |  | (Principal
 Executive Officer)                       
| |        |             |     |        |  |                                                      
| | Dated: | May 7, 2009 |     |        |  |                                                      
| |        |             |     |        |  |                                                      
| |        |             | By: | /s/    |  | KATHLEEN P.
 McSHERRY                                
| |        |             |     |        |  |                                                      
| |        |             |     | Name:  |  | Kathleen P.
 McSherry                                
| |        |             |     | Title: |  | Executive
 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |        |             |     |        |  | (Principal
 Financial Officer)                       

A signed original of this
written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement has been provided to Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC and
will be retained by Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
wern-20121231ex104




EXHIBIT 10.4


WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION




On November 29, 2012, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Werner Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) approved the following base salaries and performance-based compensation awards, in the form of annual cash bonuses, for the Company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and other named executive officers.  The 2012 annual cash bonuses were awarded under the Company’s discretionary annual cash bonus program and were paid on December 3, 2012.  Such performance-based compensation awards are determined at the sole discretion of the Committee.
 
	
					
	

Name
	 
	

Base Salary
	 
	

Cash Bonus

	Gary L. Werner
Chairman
	 
	

$505,000
	 
	

$300,000

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Gregory L. Werner
Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	

$720,000
	 
	

$350,000

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Derek J. Leathers
President and Chief Operating Officer
	 
	

$519,000
	 
	

$320,000

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	John J. Steele
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	

$235,000
	 
	

$115,000

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	James A. Mullen
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
	 
	

$360,800
	 
	

$110,000






The named executive officers are also eligible to receive long-term incentive compensation, in the form of equity awards, at the sole discretion of the Committee.  Equity awards are granted pursuant to the terms of the Werner Enterprises, Inc. Equity Plan and either the Form of Notice of Grant of Nonqualified Stock Option or the Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement, all of which are filed as exhibits to the Company's Form 10-K.  To the extent required by SEC regulations, equity awards granted to the Company’s named executive officers are reported on Form 4 filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


In addition to the cash and equity compensation described above, certain of the Company’s named executive officers may also receive the following other compensation and perquisites: matching contributions to the Company’s 401(k) retirement savings plan and employee stock purchase plan, personal use of a Company-provided vehicle, country club membership and income tax preparation services.  The named executive officers are also eligible to participate in voluntary health and welfare benefit programs sponsored by the Company.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3476

___________________________

Ahmad Daniel

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Honeywell International Inc.; Katie Lorentzen; Dawn C. Valdivia; Tara Hill; Kyle Swatfager

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

Submitted: July 15, 2024

Filed: August 2, 2024 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before KELLY, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Ahmad Daniel appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se employment

discrimination action. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments

1The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.
on appeal, we conclude that dismissal was warranted based on Daniel’s failure to

comply with federal and local rules. See Mangan v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911

(8th Cir. 1988) (reviewing dismissal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 for

abuse of discretion); see also Nw. Bank & Tr. Co. v. First Ill. Nat’l Bank, 354 F.3d

721, 725 (8th Cir. 2003) (reviewing district court’s application of its local rules for

abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny

Daniel’s pending motion.

______________________________

-2-
#### In re A. MAGGIOLI CO.

No. 67102.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 13, 1943.

Widetzky & Kruger, of Boston, Mass., for petitioning creditors.

William J. Good, of Boston, Mass., for alleged bankrupt.

FORD, District Judge.

The petitioning creditors have filed some thirty-one objections to the report of the special master dismissing a contested involuntary petition in bankruptcy. No transcript of the evidence has been filed by the master as required by law. Rule 53 (e) (1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. (See decision, 3 F.R.D. 83, justifying that action filed this day on petitioners’ motion to strike.) In view of the absence of a transcript'of evidence, unless the findings of fact of the master can be said to be clearly erroneous on the face of the report, there is nothing for this court to do except to accept and adopt those findings. This I do. See Parker v. United States, 1 Cir., 126 F.2d 370, 376; Chopelas v. Chopelas, 303 Mass. 33, 37, 20 N.E.2d 445; Cook v. Scheffreen, 215 Mass. 444; 447, 102 N.E. 715; In re Murphy, D.C., 225 F. 392; General Order in Bankruptcy No. 47, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53 and Rule 53 (e) (2) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The main question of fact with which the master dealt and upon which, the final result mainly hinged was the question of the alleged bankrupt’s solvency. The facts with respect to this issue have been reported in more or less detail. The master appears to *87be correct in his findings with respect to that issue. :

The master’s conclusion that Attorney Good was authorized to act for the alleged bankrupt corporation is justified. There was ample evidence of ratification even if there was lacking any formality in his selection in the first instance. I can find no prejudicial error of law committed by the master.

The report is confirmed and the bankruptcy petition dismissed.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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 SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(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/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerApril
      21, 2010
# 2022 BRS National Table
----

|   |                                                                                                                                                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.     | the      report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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. |

| May      6, 2009 |                                     | /s/      Marshall T. Reynolds |   |
|------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Date             | Marshall      T. Reynolds                |
|             | Chairman      and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |

| May      6, 2009 |                         | /s/      Larry A. Blount |   |
|------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
| Date             | Larry      A. Blount         |
|             | Chief      Financial Officer |
#### In the Matter of City of Peekskill, Respondent, v Local 456, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 563]

This proceeding concerns the arbitration of an employee disciplinary issue between the employee’s union, Local 456, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (hereinafter the Union), and his employer, the City of Peekskill. The arbitration process is governed by a collective bargaining agreement.

The employee worked as a motor equipment operator for the City’s Sanitation Department and had been employed for 22 years. His employment was terminated after testing positive for alcohol. The Union requested arbitration and, after a hearing, the arbitrator issued an award reinstating the employee to a different position with the City. The City petitioned to vacate the award and the Supreme Court granted the petition. We reverse.

“ ‘An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power’ ” *(Matter of County of Westchester v Doyle,*43 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2007], quoting *Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn.,*78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]; *see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers’ Union of Am., Lo*
      *731
      *cal 100, AFL-CIO,*6 NY3d 332, 336 [2005]). Here, the Supreme Court improperly found that the award was irrational and exceeded the arbitrator’s authority.

An arbitration award is irrational if there is no proof to justify it or its construction of the provisions in dispute, in effect, creates a new contract for the parties (see *Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn.,*308 AD2d 452, 453 [2003]). Here, the arbitrator cited evidence to support his conclusion that the City did not have cause to terminate the employment. “The mere fact that a different construction could have been accorded the provisions concerned and a different conclusion reached does not mean that the arbitrators so misread those provisions as to empower a court to set aside the award” *(Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson],*8 NY2d 377, 383 [1960]).

Short of complete irrationality, arbitrators may do justice and fashion the remedy to fit the facts before them, subject to the interdictions of public policy as set forth in the Constitution, statutes, and decisional law *(see Matter of Panton v Allstate Ins. Co.,*173 AD2d 831 [1991]). Here, the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in fashioning a remedy, since he did not add to, subtract from, or modify the collective bargaining agreement *(see Matter of Board of Educ. of Mt. Sinai Union Free School Dist. v Mt. Sinai Teachers’ Assn.,*139 AD2d 733, 734 [1988]).

Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court must be reversed and the arbitration award reinstated. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report On Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of ZipGlobal Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
      I, Michael C. Lee, the President and the Principal Executive Officer and
      Principal Accounting 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.





Dated:
      August 14, 2008











By: /s/
      MICHAEL C. LEE


Michael
      C. Lee


President
      and Director


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


(Principal
      Financial/Accounting Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     /s/ Gary L. ScottGary L. Scott
Chief Executive Officer
August 7, 2007/s/ Jason WestJason West
Chief Financial Officer
August 7, 2007
 
 *
    
    As set forth in Item 601 of Regulation S-K, any certification furnished pursuant to this Item
will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act (15
U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
<PAGE>



                                                                Exhibit 10(a)(3)

                        SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

Employee                                                     Form of Agreement
--------                                                     -----------------
D.  W. Ehrenkranz .........................................  B

William F. Schwer .........................................  A

W. J. Smith ...............................................  B

Ben A. Oxnard, Jr .........................................  B

Walter C. Lehners .........................................  B

Mark S. Flegenheimer ......................................  B

Karen L. Mercer ...........................................  B
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 of RathGibson, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry C. Nuss, 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date:  December 12, 2007/s/ Barry C. NussBarry C. NussChief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15789]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Hormonal signals that regulate 
ovarian differentiation.
    Date: July 30, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Rm. 
5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 29, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15789 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
#### Kathryn Russo et al., Appellants, v Valley Central School District, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 607]

*783In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated June 10, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Kathryn Russo allegedly was injured during an after-school program when, as she was demonstrating how to use a swing, a chain detached from the seat, causing her to fall to the ground. In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous and defective condition of the swing, or whether that negligence by the defendant was a proximate cause of the injuries alleged *(see Goetz v Town of Smithtown,*303 AD2d 367 [2003]; *Sinto v City of Long Beach,*290 AD2d 550 [2002]). Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Miller, J.R, Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
-against

LEONID ZALTSBERG,

Defendant,

--- —--_-

Case No. IO-CR-437 (SR

ORDER

AN APPLICATION HAVING BEEN MADE TO THIS COURT BY DEFENDANT

LEONID ZALTSBERG, for permission for him to travel internationally in Europe upon the

completion of his term of 12 months of home detention pursuant to the Location MonitoringProgram, and defendant’s counsel, Steven R. Kartagener, Esq., having been heard in support ofsaid

application, and Government attorneys Michael C. Vasiliadis, Esq., and AUSA Scott McBride,

having been heard in response to said application, and with the consent ofthe Government,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that defendant is granted immediate permission to travel

outside of the United States for a period of 60 days, with Leave to seek permission for additional

periods of international travel within one week of his return from any previous period of

international travel; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, thai prior to commencing any period ofinternational travel,

defendant shall provide his Probation Officer with an itinerary of his planned travel, and saiditinerary shall be subject to the approval ofthe Probation Officer.

Dated: January 2012
Cou

se

o

Defeitdant

Michael C, Vas iaths, Esq.

Counsel for the Government

United States Distxict Judge
#### HAZEN v. PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE R. CO.

Civ. No. 26674.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Oct. 19, 1949.

John Ruffalo, John Ruffalo, Jr., Youngstown, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Richard B. Wilson, Knowles Wyatt,, Youngstown, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a personal injury action.

Defendant moves that the plaintiff make his complaint more definite and certain.

It has been held by this Court that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12 (e), 28 U.S.C.A., may be used to require a more definite statement only when the pleadings objected to are so vague or ambiguous that a responsive answer cannot be framed.

It is sufficient to say that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any such defect. If any defect appears, it is in plaintiff’s failure to carry out the mandate of Rules 8(a) (2) and 8(e).

The information desired by defendant can be obtained by recourse to the Rules of Discovery.

The motion will be overruled.