alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.1

RAIT Financial Trust

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street, 17thFloor

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

We
have reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim consolidated financial information of RAIT Financial Trust and subsidiaries for the periods ended
September 30, 2007 and 2006, as indicated in our report dated November 8, 2007 because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements of RAIT
Financial Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 333-144603; effective on July 16, 2007; File No. 333-139948, effective on January 12, 2007; File No. 333-139889, effective on January 10, 2007; File No. 333-103618,
effective on March 14, 2003; File No. 333-69366, effective on October 18, 2001; and File No. 333-78519, effective on May 14, 1999) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-125480, effective on June 3, 2005; File
No. 333-109158, effective on September 26, 2003; File No. 333-100766, effective on October 25, 2002; and File No. 333-67452, effective on August 14, 2001).

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Grant Thornton LLP    
|Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
|November 8, 2007
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JOHN ALAN SAKON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN JOHNSON, F. PERRONE, BRUCE D. 

SKEHAN, PETER BRANDER, NEAL CAVANAUGH, 

MICHAEL ROBERTS, PETER J. CELIO, WILMARY 

LABONTE, DANIELLE STONE-MITCHELL, 

CHRISTOPHER FERREIRA, SETH CONANT, 

FREED MARCROFT LLC, GLASTONBURY, CT, 

MANCHESTER, CT, STATE OF CONNECTICUT,

Defendants-Appellees

FRANCELIA MARIE SEVIN, DENNIS O’TOOLE,

Defendants

______________________

2024-1747

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Connecticut in No. 3:23-cv-00107-AWT, Senior 

Judge Alvin W. Thompson.

______________________

Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Case: 24-1747 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 07/24/2024
2 SAKON v. JOHNSON

John Alan Sakon sued local and state officials in the 

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 

alleging various civil rights violations. The district court 

dismissed the complaint, and Mr. Sakon filed a notice of 

appeal directed to this court. In response to this court’s 

show cause order, appellees argue that this court lacks jurisdiction, while Mr. Sakon asks for transfer to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.1

In general, this court’s jurisdiction to review district 

court cases is limited to cases that arise under the patent 

laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to 

the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or cases that involve certain damages claims against the United States “not 

exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see

§ 1295(a)(2). Mr. Sakon’s case does not fall within that jurisdiction, and we conclude that transfer to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294, 1631.

Accordingly,

1 Mr. Sakon has moved to file his response to the 

show cause order out-of-time, ECF No. 14, which is 

granted.

Case: 24-1747 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 07/24/2024
SAKON v. JOHNSON 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

July 24, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1747 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 07/24/2024
EXHIBIT 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

****

            In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”), I,Charles N. Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),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 Exchange Act; 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/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.                      Charles N. Martin, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 9, 2006
#### In re KILLIAN MFG. CO.

(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

December 18, 1913.)

No. 4,668.

Bankruptcy (§ 165*)—Personal Property—Bankers’ Title—Advances to Pay for Goods—Delivery on Trust Receipt.

Where a bank, in accordance with custom, furnished credit to purchase silk, taking title thereto in its own name and delivering the same to certain bankrupts for manufacture under a trust receipt binding the bankrupts to hold the goods, or the proceeds thereof, for the bank until the purchase price was paid, the title never passed to the bankrupts, and their agreement while insolvent to return the goods to the bank was not a preference.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 259, 260, 266; Dec. Dig. § 165.*]

In Bankruptcy. Proceedings against the Killian Manufacturing Company. On certificate of referee allowing a claim of Smith & Schipper, agents for William Brandt’s Sons & Co., bankers, to recover certain silk purchased and delivered to the bankrupts.

Affirmed.

Wessel & Aarons, of Philadelphia, Pa., for trustee.

James Collins Jones, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Irving E. Ernst, of New York City, for claimant.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Replr Indexes

J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

Unless the case of Century Throwing Company v. Muller (C. C. A. 3d Circ.) 197 Fed. 252, 116 C. C. A. 614, was wrongly decided—to say nothing of other cases cited by the claimants’ counsel—the referee’s order was right. I agree with the findings of fact, as well as with the conclusion that the title of the bankers was not transferred, either directly or indirectly. I need not set out again the somewhat complicated facts of the transaction, which began in Japan and passed through several stages, ending in Pennsylvania with the delivery of the silk on consignment to the bankrupt corporation. Nowhere in the line can I find anything to show that *499the bankers’ title—which in the beginning was undoubted—was ever divested, either by any positive act of their own, or by any act of an agent that binds them under the doctrine of estoppel.

The papers that were signed within four months of the bankruptcy neither strengthened nor weakened this title. They were properly disregarded by the referee, and need not be considered now. They might have been relevant, if the question concerned an attempted preference; but, if this silk did not belong to the- bankrupt, there would be no preference in returning it to the real owner—still less, in agreeing to return it. In my opinion, the fundamental facts in the controversy are these: The bankers started with the full ownership of this silk, and this ownership has never been lost. The use of trust receipts has become so common in recent years as to lead the courts (which always follow an established business usage sooner or later) to modify in some particulars the stringency of the old rule concerning the effect of divorcing the title and the possession of personal property! Judge Gray deals with this subject more at length in the Century Company’s Case.

The order of the referee is affirmed.
# C_2009145EN.01000101.xml

| 25.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/1

---

Notice for the attention of those persons, entities and bodies that have been included by the Council on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 applies (Annex V)

2009/C 145/01

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, entities and bodies that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 (1).

1

By that Decision, the Council of the European Union determined that the persons, entities and bodies that appear on the above-mentioned list fulfil the criteria set out in Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), and they were consequently included in Annex V to that Regulation. The Regulation provides for a freezing of all funds, other financial assets and economic resources belonging to the persons, entities or bodies concerned and that no funds, other financial assets and economic resources shall be made available to or for the benefit of such persons, entities or bodies, whether directly or indirectly.

2

According to Article 15(2) of the Regulation, the list of persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 7(2) shall be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.

For this purpose, the persons, entities or bodies concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered.

Any such requests should be sent, within one month from the date of publication of the present notice, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| Rue de la Loi 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussels |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

Rue de la Loi 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussels

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 163, 24.6.2008, p. 29.

1

(2)  OJ L 103, 20.4.2007, p. 1.

2

---
Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE     Document 3      Filed 06/21/2007     Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE     Document 3      Filed 06/21/2007     Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE     Document 3      Filed 06/21/2007     Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE     Document 3      Filed 06/21/2007     Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE     Document 3      Filed 06/21/2007     Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE     Document 3      Filed 06/21/2007     Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE     Document 3      Filed 06/21/2007     Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE     Document 3      Filed 06/21/2007     Page 8 of 8
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000118

08-MAR-2017

08:31 AM
# C_2009253EN.01002101.xml

| 23.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/21

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 253/06

| Member State | United Kingdom |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Cardiff and RAF Valley, Anglesey |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | Date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained | Mr Richard Osborne |
| Contracts and Procurement Branch |
| Transport Planning and Governance Division |
| Welsh Assembly Government |
| Cathays Park |
| Cardiff |
| CF10 3NQ |
| UNITED KINGDOM |
| Tel. +44 2920826286 |
| Fax +44 2920826233 |
| E-mail: richard.osborne@wales.gsi.gov.uk |

Member State

United Kingdom

Concerned route

Cardiff and RAF Valley, Anglesey

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

Date of publication of this notice

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained

Mr Richard Osborne

Contracts and Procurement Branch

Transport Planning and Governance Division

Welsh Assembly Government

Cathays Park

Cardiff

CF10 3NQ

UNITED KINGDOM

Tel. +44 2920826286

Fax +44 2920826233

E-mail: richard.osborne@wales.gsi.gov.uk

---
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 39 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
(LOGO)ERNST & YOUNG LLP

1300 Chiquita Center          Phone: 513 621 6454
250 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202



Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors
Provident Financial Group, Inc.

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled Report of Management,  that The Provident Bank (Provident)  complied with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) during
the year ended  December 31, 1999.  Management is  responsible  for  Provident's
compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on  management's   assertions   about   Provident's   compliance  based  on  our
examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence  about the Bank's  compliance  with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our  opinion.  Our  examination  does not provide a legal  determination  on
Provident's compliance with specified requirements.

In  our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  Provident  complied  with  the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended  December 31, 1999 is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

Ernst & Young LLP
March 31, 2000


Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
AL D- 2 1 0 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 10- 1592 F RA NK C E CI L CA NNON, A ppel l ant v . M A R Y SA B O L , W ar den of Y ork C ountyPr i s on

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 1945) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir S u b mi tt e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 M ay26, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 7, 2010 )

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM Fr ank C annon appe al s the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s pet i t i on forhabea s c o rp u s . F o rth e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we wi l l a f f i rm.2

T h e p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is c a se a n d th e d e tails o f C a n n o n ’s c laim s a re w e ll know n t o the part i es and nee d notbe di s cus s ed atl ength. B r i efl y , C annon fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. H e ar gued thatw hen he w as admi tt ed i nt o the countypr i s on, an i nt ake c ouns el orw r ot e dow n thatC annon w as a paga n a n d n o t a H e b re w Isr a e lit e . H e c o n ten d e d th a t h e w a s n o t allo w e d to p a rticip a te in H ebr ew act i vi t i es , w hi ch deni ed hi s r i ght s underthe Fi r s tA m endment . H e r eques t ed that the D i s tr i ctC ourtgr antthe w r i tand enj oi n r es pondent s fr om vi ol at i ng hi s r i ght s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed the pet i t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o C annon pr es ent i ng hi s cl ai m s i n a pr oper l yfi l ed ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nt . C annon fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC ourtthatC annon’ s cl ai m s conce rni ng hi s part i ci pat i on i n r el i gi ous act i vi t i es atthe pr i s on do notl i e atthe “c or e of habeas ” and, ther efor e, ar e not co g n izab le i n a § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n . S ee L ea m er v . F au v er, 28 8 F . 3 d 5 3 2 , 5 4 2 -44 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). N o n e o f

h is c la im s c h a lle n g e s th e f a c t o r l e n g th o f

h is s e n te n c e o r c o n f

in e m e n t. S e e P re is e r v . R o d ri g u e z , 4 1 1 U .S . 4 7 5 , 5 0 0 (1 9 7 3 ). Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed i n the appea l . See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4. Forthe above r eas ons , as w el l as thos e s etforth by th e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r. S e e T h ird C irc u it I . O . P. 10. 6.
#### Linda Saal, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Saal, Deceased, Respondent, v Claridge *632Hotel and Casino et al., Defendants, and Cessna Aircraft Corporation, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death, the defendant Cessna Aircraft Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated September 20, 1988, which denied its motion to change venue from Queens County to Suffolk County and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to retain venue in Queens County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, shall deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, all papers filed in . the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries.

The plaintiff was and still is a resident of Suffolk County and her decedent was a resident of Suffolk County. The accident which underlies this lawsuit occurred in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and none of the named defendants are residents of Queens County. The basis for the plaintiff’s selection of Queens County as the place of trial was an office allegedly maintained by the defendant Claridge Hotel and Casino at the Marine Air Terminal, La Guardia Airport, Queens, New York. However, that corporation’s certificate of incorporation designated New York County as its principal place of business. The law is well established that the sole legal residence of a corporation for venue purposes is the county designated in its certificate of incorporation. Thus, the plaintiff selected an improper venue and thereby forfeited her rights to select the place of venue *(Papadakis v Command Bus Co.,*91 AD2d 657). Further, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the convenience of witnesses and the interests of justice will be furthered by retaining venue in Queens County. Accordingly, venue should be changed to Suffolk County, which is a proper county for venue purposes and is the place which was selected for trial by the appellant. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Clear All

        23 June 2022    

                    Father, son serve in same department aboard USS George H.W. Bush                 
                ATLANTIC OCEAN— As a young man, Lt. Jerry Dome joined the Navy as a Machinist’s Mate (Nuclear), to take care of his wife, pregnant with their first child. Fourteen and a half years later, he is the acting reactor mechanical officer aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush.            

        20 May 2022    

                    USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) Changes Command                 
                NAVAL STATION NORFOLK – Capt. David-Tavis M. Pollard relieved Capt. George R. Aguilar as Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) during a ceremony May 19, 2022.            

#####  

##### 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
21

                            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 Freedom Resources Enterprises,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Neil  Christiansen,  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  the  best  of  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  result of operations of the
Company.




Date:  November  13,  2002                    /s/ Neil  Christiansen
                                              ----------------------
                                              Chief  Financial  Officer