alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 RAIT Financial Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott F. Schaeffer, Chief Executive Officer and President 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), as applicable, 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/    Scott F. Schaeffer            
|Scott F. Schaeffer                   
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|Date: August 9, 2010
Clear All

        12 January 2023    

                    Navy Scientists Test a Method for Healthier, Longer-Living Coral                 
                VIEQUES, Puerto Rico - The U.S. Navy and coral: neighbors; living, breathing structures; and members of interdependent ecosystems.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         516,243
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,188)
<INVENTORY>                                     50,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               862,386
<PP&E>                                         399,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                (345,125)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 920,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,941
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,626,111
<COMMON>                                           287
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,065,731)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   920,608
<SALES>                                        119,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,724
<CGS>                                           44,944
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,519,174
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,510,287)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,510,287)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,510,287)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.00)


</TABLE>
#### Irwin P. Underweiser, Appellant-Respondent, v Jerome Gans et al., Respondents-Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

In an action to recover damages for damages to the plaintiff’s automobile, the plaintiff appeals and the defendants cross-appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silberman, J.H.O.), entered February 1, 1988, which *inter alia,*is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants Jerome and Jamie Gans, in the principal sum of $1,563.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, by deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision awarding damages to the plaintiff in the principal sum of $51.48; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

*849The weight of the evidence supports the conclusion of the Judicial Hearing Officer that the defendants Jerome and Jamie Gans are liable for the damage to the plaintiff’s automobile. The weight of the evidence also supports the conclusion that the plaintiff incurred an expense in the sum of $51.48 in having his automobile towed away from the scene of the accident.

However, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to his remaining damage claims. The vehicle in question was a 1972 Cadillac which had been driven approximately 111,000 miles. Under these circumstances, we believe that the Judicial Hearing Officer properly concluded that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that the cost of repairing the vehicle, as reflected in certain estimates, did not exceed either the diminution in the market value of the vehicle caused by the accident, or the market value of the automobile in its preaccident condition *(see, Gass v Agate Ice Cream,*264 NY 141; *see also, Wachsman v Hethering,*31 AD2d 522; *Farrell v Klapach,*24 AD2d 590; *Johnson v Scholz,*276 App Div 163, 164; *Parilli v Brooklyn City R. R.,*236 App Div 577). We find that the Judicial Hearing Officer was fully justified in drawing the inference, based on the evidence concerning the age and preexisting condition of the plaintiff’s vehicle, that the alleged cost of repairing the vehicle was not reasonable.

Although the Judicial Hearing Officer properly declined to base any award of damages on the plaintiff’s estimated cost of repair, we find that he improperly awarded damages in the principal sum of $972.50 based solely upon proof that the defendants’ insurer had offered to pay that sum in settlement of the plaintiff’s claim. This offer of compromise was not reliable evidence of the value of the claim *(see, Cook v State of New York,*105 Misc 2d 1040).

We also find that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving the amount of damages attributable to his loss of use of the vehicle. Bracken, J. R, Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Clear All

        11 February 2024    

                    USS Bataan, 26th MEU(SOC) Port in Larnaca, Cyprus                 
                LARNACA, Cyprus - The Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5) and embarked 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) (MEU(SOC)) arrived in Larnaca, Republic of Cyprus, for a scheduled port visit, Feb. 11.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7078
JERRY WAYNE BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALVIN HUDSON; LIEUTENANT BROOKS; D. BROWLIEGH; L. JACOBS, Nurse; CAPTAIN POFF; G. S. FLINT; JOHN DOE, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-595-R) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Wayne Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bradley v. Hudson , No. CA-95-595-R (W.D. Va. June 20, 1995). We deny Appellant's motions for production of evidence and to expand the record. 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
#### ARUTE BROTHERS, INC. *v.*DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 367 (AC 25002), is denied.

BORDEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

*919
      *Lawrence G. Rosenthal, Pamela Levin Cameron*and *Mark A. Rosenblum,*in support of the petition.

*Peter R. Huntsman,*assistant attorney general, in opposition.

Decided March 23, 2005
#                                                                         U.S. Fleet Forces Command Hosts the Inaugural Norfolk Clergy Collective                                                                    

07 November 2023
NORFOLK, Va. (Oct. 26, 2023) – The U.S. Fleet Forces Command Chaplain’s Office, hosted the inaugural Norfolk Clergy Collective meet-and-greet event at the Naval Station Norfolk Base Chapel. During the event, U.S. Navy chaplains met with local clergy of various faith groups from the Norfolk area to build partnerships in order to better serve Sailors and maintain readiness.“I believe that chaplains are vital to each and every command because Sailors need to be healthy physically, mentally, and spiritually,” said Rabbi Gershon Litt, contracted civilian rabbi, Naval Station Norfolk Chapel. “Chaplains can offer the spiritual component that is often difficult to find in troubling times or during times of stress.”The conference began with a meet-and-greet between 48 Norfolk area clergy and U.S. Navy chaplains from various faith groups including Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Non-denominational Christian, Latter Day Saints and Jewish. The conference included presentations on the history of the Chaplain Corps, chaplain responsibilities and a review of the U.S. Navy rank structure, ships and crews. The attendees also connected with Sailors by eating lunch with them at one of the Naval Station Norfolk galleys. Afterward, the clergy members and chaplains toured USS Porter (DDG 78) and USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98).“The most rewarding part of my job helping Sailors is that I see the results of my work right away,” Rabbi Litt said. “I see the shoulders shrink down from the release of stress and the opportunity to share communal happiness with friends and family.”According to Capt. Brian Stamm, fleet chaplain, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, there are plans to host another event in March, 2024. This will be an orientation for civilian clergy to help support Sailors and their families in the event of a national crisis.“The reason for the program is to ensure that our Sailors and [their] dependents and family members have support,” said Stamm. “Tensions in the world have led to thinking in new ways on spiritual readiness and care regarding our Sailors.”

Tags:
**Inaugural Norfolk Clergy Collective**Naval Station Norfolk Base Chapel

Terms:
**Communities**People**Aviation
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Ladson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered October 23, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly denied his request for an agency defense charge. The facts adduced at trial established that when the undercover officer arrived at 448 Grand Avenue in Brooklyn on the evening of January 29, 1987, she knocked on the front door and was greeted by the codefendant Michael King. In response to King’s inquiry, the officer stated that she wanted "a dime”. King directed the officer to a steel door, in the back of the room and directed the officer to place her money under the door. When the officer slipped $10 of prerecorded money under *593the door, a vial fell from a hole at the top of the door. The officer indicated that she was unable to locate the vial, at which point, the defendant walked up to the officer and said that the officer had to find it because "we can’t replace it”. The officer eventually located the vial, with the assistance of the defendant and King, and left the premises.

It is well established that where there is some reasonable view of the evidence that a defendant acted as an instrumentality of the buyer rather than as a seller, the court must, upon a timely request, charge the jury as to the defense of agency *(see, People v Roche,*45 NY2d 78; *People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, *rearg denied*45 NY2d 839, *cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York,*439 US 930; *People v Miano,*143 AD2d 777). In the case at bar, no reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that the defendant was a mere instrumentality of the buyer. The defendant expressly admitted that he was a member of the drug-selling operation when he admonished the undercover officer that she had to locate the vial because *"we*can’t replace it” (emphasis supplied). To this extent, this appeal is distinguishable from the codefendant King’s appeal which resulted in a reversal of his judgment of conviction due to the lack of an agency charge *(see, People v King,*150 AD2d 497), as King never admitted to being a member of the drug-selling operation and a reasonable view of the evidence was consistent with a finding that he was merely facilitating the purchase of drugs by the officer.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER 21 MC 102 (AKH)

LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER

SITE LITIGATION

EDWARD KOSOWSKI (and wife, ELZBIETA 07-CV-5299 (AKH)

STEFANSKA),

Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

-against100 CHURCH LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby enters an appearance as counsel

for Defendants 100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a

SAPIR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. in the above-captioned action and all future

correspondence and papers filed or serviced in connection with the above-captioned action are to

be directed to the undersigned.

Dated: New York, New York

September 10, 2007

Yours etc.,

HARRIS BEACH PLLC

Attorneys for Defendant

100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY

MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a SAPIR

REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP.

Is!

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG-7062)

100 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005

212 687-0100

212 687-0659 (Fax)

Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 20 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on September 10, 2007, I caused the following document

to be electronically via the Courts ECF system:

1. Notice of Appearance (of Defendants 100 Church LLC and Zar Realty

Management Corp. nlk/a Sapir Realty Management Corp.).

The undersigned further certifies that on September 10, 2007, I caused the aforesaid

documents to be served via First Class Mail upon the following:

Paul Napoli, Esq.

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, P.C.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Law Offices of Gregory J. Cannata

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Liaison Counselfor Plaintj/fs

Dated: September 10, 2007

James E. Tyrrell, Esq.

Joseph Hopkins, Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

1 Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Thomas Egan, Esq.

Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006

Liaison Counselfor the Defendants

Is!

Stanley Goos

Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 20 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALFREDO GARCIA-FELICIAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72393

Agency No. A099-834-656

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Alfredo Garcia-Felician, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

JAN 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72393

review de novo claims of due process violations. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d

1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review. 

We lack jurisdiction over the petition insofar as it seeks review of the BIA’s

discretionary determination that Garcia-Felician failed to show exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See id. Garcia-Felician’s

contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by disregarding the Sanchez

Report is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable

constitutional claim. See id. at 1200-01; see also Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552

F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (court lacks jurisdiction over abuse of discretion

challenges cloaked as constitutional or legal questions). 

The BIA properly determined that the IJ’s admission of the government’s

background documents on Mexico did not violate Garcia-Felician’s due process

rights because he failed to demonstrate that the admission was fundamentally

unfair and that he suffered prejudice. See Hammad v. Holder, 603 F.3d 536, 545

(9th Cir. 2010) (although the rules of evidence do not apply to immigration

hearings, proceeding must be conducted in accordance with due process standards

of fundamental fairness); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error and prejudice for a due process claim).
3 09-72393

Garcia-Felician’s contention that the Attorney General exceeded his

authority in promulgating 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) is foreclosed by GarfiasRodriguez v. Holder, No. 09-72603, 2012 WL 5077137, at * 16-20 (9th Cir. Oct.

19, 2012) (en banc) (holding that the promulgation of 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) was a

proper exercise of the Attorney General’s authority). The stay granted by this

court on October 15, 2009, is lifted; however, if he complies with the requirements

of 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i), by departing within thirty days, Garcia Felician shall not

be deemed to have departed under the order of removal. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Clear All

        10 January 2024    

                    CNO Releases Priorities: America’s Warfighting Navy                 
                WASHINGTON (Jan. 9, 2023) – Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti released her priorities in a paper titled “America’s Warfighting Navy,” at the Surface Navy Association’s National Symposium, Jan. 9.            

        21 April 2023    

                    Foreign Attachés Visit Naval Oceanography                 
                STENNIS SPACE CENTER, Miss. - Naval Oceanography hosted representatives from 13 countries, who saw firsthand the capabilities and missions that our 2500 Sailors and Scientists perform around the world, April 20, 2023. The visit provided an opportunity for the foreign attachés to tour our facilities            

        17 May 2022    

                    SECNAV, CNO visit USS George Washington                 
                NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Carlos Del Toro and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Gilday traveled to Newport News, Va. today to meet with Sailors assigned to the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73).             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
N OTE : This o rder is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
MADSTAD ENGINEERING, INC. AND MARK STADNYK, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, TERESA STANEK REA, A CTING
DIRE C TOR , U NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND UNITED STATES
, Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________

2013

- 1512

______________________
Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the Middle District of Florida in No. 12

- CV

- 1589, Judge Steven D. Merryday.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of t he United States ’ unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal as erroneously docketed, Case: 13-1512 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 11/19/2013MADSTAD ENGINEERING
, INC

. v. PTO 2

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk
s25

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 19, 2013 Case: 13-1512 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 11/19/2013