alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2705

DIANNA WOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-96-167-B) Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Roger W. Rutherford, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Robert S. Drum, Assistant Regional Counsel,Robert P. Crouch, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Dianna Wood appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s finding that she is not disabledand therefore not entitled to disability benefits. 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. See Wood v. Commissioner , No. CA-96-167-B (W.D. Va. Sept. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer  In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) of Hamptons Luxury Homes, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Roy Dalene, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:  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 conditions and results of operations of the Registrant.   Dated:  March 31, 2008 /s/ Roy Dalene Roy Dalene
News United States Air Force
 Yokota aids Japan with earthquake reliefPublished April 18, 2016
                        
                        By 374th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS)  --**
                The 374th Airlift Wing sent two C-130 Hercules aircraft and aircrew to the Kyushu region April 18, supporting the government of Japan in their relief efforts for the series of earthquakes that took place in Kumamoto Prefecture and surrounding areas.The Yokota aircraft transported heavy vehicles and personnel from Chitose Air Base, Hokkaido, to Kyushu, improving the capabilities of ground relief efforts in the area. Each C-130 can load up to 42,000 pounds of cargo."These missions are perfect examples of why we are located where we are and what we train for every day," said Lt. Col. John Kerr, the 36th Airlift Squadron director of operations. "Our airlifters are eager to show their support for their friends and neighbors in Japan following this tragedy."The 374th AW, as the primary airlift hub in the Indo-Asia Pacific region, has experience responding to natural disasters. In March 2011, the 374th AW responded to the 9.0 earthquake near Sendai, Japan, providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief to stricken areas. In 2013, the wing sent five C-130s to the Philippines to offload cargo and airlift evacuees seeking safe haven in Manila, and in 2015, the 374th AW also sent support to Nepal in response to the Gorkha earthquake."I would like to express my deepest condolences on behalf of the men and women of the 374th Airlift Wing," said Col. Douglas DeLaMater, the 374th AW commander. "We will continue to support the relief efforts in Kumamoto in whatever way the Government of Japan requests. This is a tragic event, but I am confident in the resolve of the people of Japan."Japan 



earthquake 



Yokota AB 



PACAF 



relief 



Humanitarian
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


Entity Name

Advanced Imaging Partners, Inc.
Advanced Medical Imaging, Inc.
Advanced PET Imaging of Maryland, L.P.
Advanced Radiology, LLC
Radiologix Services, Inc.
Community Imaging Partners, Inc.
Ide Imaging Partners, Inc.
M&S Imaging Investments, Inc.
M&S Imaging Partners I, Inc.
M&S Imaging Partners, L.P.
Mid Rockland Imaging Partners, Inc.
Pacific Imaging Partners, Inc.
Premier Advanced Imaging Network, Ltd.
Questar Cleveland, Inc.
Questar Columbus, Inc.
Questar Duluth, Inc.
Questar Henderson, Inc.
Questar Imaging, Inc.
Questar Kansas, Inc.
Questar Lincoln, Inc.
Questar Los Alamitos, Inc.
Questar Lower Bucks, Inc.
Questar Naperville, Inc.
Questar Orlando, Inc.
Questar Quakertown, Inc.
Questar San Francisco, Inc.
Questar Tampa, Inc.
Questar Toledo, Inc.
Questar TriStates, Inc.
Questar Tucson, Inc.
Questar Victorville, Inc.
Radiology & Nuclear Medicine Imaging Partners, Inc.
Rocky Mountain OpenScan MRI, LLC
Tower Advanced MRI Ltd.
Tower OpenScan MRI, G. P.
Treasure Coast Imaging Partners, Inc.
Valley Imaging Partners, Inc.
WB&A Imaging Partners, Inc.
#### David JACOBSON v. Robert HENDERSON, et al.

No. 2010-CI-2476.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Jacobson, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C-2010-0797-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01117.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**Section 906      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|                                  |                                                                                                                                                                                     |                           |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                       |                                                                                                                                                                                          | /s/                Keith A. Meister |
|                                       | Keith                A Meister                                                                                                                                                                |
|                                       | Principal                Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of theBoard                of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the General Partner of Icahn Enterprises                Holdings L.P. |
| Date:                March 31, 2008   |                                                                                                                                                                                          |

----
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT S. MACRUMRobert Shuter Macrum was born in Sewickley, Pa., in 1905. Graduating from high school at Silver Bay, N.Y., in 1923, he received his bachelor of science degree from Wesleyan University in 1927. 

Appointed a flying cadet in October 1928, General Macrum completed his flying training Oct. 12, 1929 and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Reserve. Receiving his regular commission as a second lieutenant of Air Corps Jan. 6, 1930, he was assigned to the Ninth Observation Group at Mitchel Field, N.Y.  

Entering the Air Corps Technical School at Chanute Field, Ill., in September 1930, General Macrum graduated from the photography course the following June, and joined the l2th Observation Group at Brooks Field, Texas. Entering Harvard University in September 1916, upon graduation in June 1938, he received his master's degree in business administration. 

Moving to Wright Field, Ohio, General Macrum was assigned to the Field Service Section. In September 1939, he entered the Air Corps Tactical School at Maxwell Field, Ala., graduated the following December and returned to Wright Field as assistant budget officer. 

Ordered to Air Corps Headquarters in Washington, D.C., in July 1940, the general was appointed deputy chief of the budget and fiscal office. He entered the Army-Navy Staff College At Norfolk, Va., in August 1944, graduated the following January, and resumed his former position. 

Going overseas to Wiesbaden, Germany with the U.S. Air Forces in Europe in June 1945, General Macrum was named assistant chief of staff for plans. That November he was appointed assistant budget and fiscal officer, USAFE, and in May 1946 became deputy director of the Budget and Fiscal Division, USAFE. 

Returning to Air Corps headquarters in April 1947, the general assumed duties as deputy chief of the Budget and Fiscal Division, becoming chief of the division three months later. In June 1948 be was designated chief of the Management Group in the Office of the Comptroller there. Transferred to the Continental Air Command in December 1948, General Macrum was named comptroller of the Fourth Air Force at Hamilton Air Force Base, Calif. 

Joining the Air Defense Command at Ent Air Force Base, Colo., in October 1952, General Macrum was appointed deputy chief of staff, comptroller assuming additional duty as deputy chief of staff, comptroller, of the Continental Air Defense Command Sept. 1, 1954. 

Going overseas July 1, 1956, General Macrum was appointed comptroller for the Far East Air Forces, with headquarters at Fuchu Air Station, Japan. 

His decorations include the Legion of Merit. He is rated a command pilot, combat observer, and aircraft observer. 

(Up to date as of July 1956)
##### 



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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended
August 11, 2003 of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew
F. Puzder, Chief Executive 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:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section
78o(d)); and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

September 15, 2003

|/s/ Andrew F. Puzder                    
|----------------------------------------
|                                        
|Andrew F. Puzder
Chief Executive Officer
#### Elsa HINESTROSA and TTI Export, Inc., Appellants, v. Richard J. DIAZ, Esquire and Richard J. Diaz, P.A., Appellees.

No. 3D09-3247.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 2011.

Oscar Syger, Pembroke Pines, for appellants.

Cole Scott <& Kisssane and Scott A. Bassman and Jennifer V. Ruiz, Miami, for appellees.

Before WELLS, C.J., and SHEPHERD and EMAS, JJ.

EMAS, J.

Appellants Elsa Hinestrosa and TTI Export, Inc., appeal the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice count one (legal malpractice) and count two (breach of fiduciary duty) of appellants’ complaint.

These two claims arise from an earlier case in which appellees were retained to represent appellants in a federal proceeding regarding the seizure and forfeiture of $141,535.61. Appellants’ complaint alleged that the underlying forfeiture proceeding had terminated, and maintained this assertion throughout several years of litigation in the instant action. Appellees maintained that the underlying forfeiture proceeding had not yet terminated, and therefore these two causes of action had not yet accrued.1 Appellees filed *k*motion for summary judgment and sought dismissal with prejudice of these claims.

At the hearing on the motion, appellants conceded that in fact the underlying forfeiture proceeding had not yet terminated. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion and dismissed counts one and two with prejudice.

While the trial court did not err in dismissing these counts (because the causes of action had not yet accrued), it did err in dismissing the counts with prejudice.2

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to enter dismissal of counts one and two without prejudice.

1

. "In claims for legal malpractice, Florida law is well-settled that redressable harm or injury is not established until the underlying legal proceeding giving rise to the malpractice claim has been finalized or completed by appellate review.” *Clemente v. Freshman,*760 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

2

. Appellants concede that count two (breach of fiduciary duty) is based on the same allegations as count one and would also require a termination of the underlying proceeding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of First Industrial, L.P. for the year ended December 31,
1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001033128
<NAME> FIRST INDUSTRIAL, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,295
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (221)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,316
<PP&E>                                         353,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8,133)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 622,122      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,051
<BONDS>                                         59,897   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     535,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   622,122
<SALES>                                         37,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,587
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   (9,935)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (10,520)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (4,685)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,921  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,273) 
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,648
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
        

</TABLE>
exv10w1







Exhibit 10.1




Board Compensation Schedule




The Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator of Freddie Mac, approved the following
compensation schedule for non-executive directors. The compensation is effective as of the date of
a director’s appointment to the Board of Directors. All compensation will be in cash.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Board Service
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Retainer for Non-Executive Chairman
	 	$	290,000	 
	Annual Retainer for Other Non-Executive Directors
	 	$	160,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Committee Service
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Retainer for Audit Committee Chair
	 	$	25,000	 
	Annual Retainer for Business and Risk Committee Chair
	 	$	15,000	 
	Annual Retainer for Committee Chair (other than
	 	$	10,000	 
	Audit and Business and Risk)
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Retainer for Audit Committee Member
	 	$	10,000
#### In the Matter of Helen Rosenfeld et al., Appellants, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 359]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo, dated January 17, 2002, which, after a hearing, granted the application of the respondent Congregation Mesifta Ohel Torah for certain area variances, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated November 29, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

While religious institutions are not exempt from local zoning laws, “greater flexibility is required in evaluating an application for a religious use than an application for another use and every effort to accommodate the religious use must be made” *(Matter of Genesis Assembly of God v Davies,*208 AD2d 627, 628 [1994]; *see Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi,*68 NY2d 583, 593 [1986]; *Matter of Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton,*1 *451NY2d 508, 523 [1956]). Accordingly, the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Zoning Board) to grant the requested area variances was rationally based and was neither arbitrary nor capricious *(see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig,*98 NY2d 304 [2002]; *Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441 [1978]; *Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591 [1977]; *see also Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi,*supra;*Matter of Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton, supra).*

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the determination of the Zoning Board dated January 17, 2002, did not have to be annulled based on an alleged conflict of interest between the chairman of the Zoning Board and the respondent Congregation Mesifta Ohel Torah (hereinafter the Congregation), pursuant to General Municipal Law § 809. The chairman volunteered as a mathematics teacher during the 2000-2001 school year at a yeshiva which was not affiliated with the Congregation but at which the Congregation’s president was the principal. Thus, the chairman did not need to recuse himself from voting on the instant application since there was no conflict of interest *(see*General Municipal Law § 809; *Webster Assoc, v Town of Webster,*59 NY2d 220 [1983]; *Matter of DePaolo v Town of Ithaca,*258 AD2d 68 [1999]; *Matter of Tuxedo Conservation & Taxpayers Assn, v Town Bd. of Town of Tuxedo,*69 AD2d 320 [1979]).

In addition, the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioners could not challenge the negative declaration of the Town of Ramapo Planning Board (hereinafter the Planning Board) pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8) since the Planning Board was not made a party to this proceeding.

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U S DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          50,070
<SECURITIES>                                    27,137
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,745
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,259
<PP&E>                                          20,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           106
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,991
<SALES>                                         15,605
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,425
<CGS>                                            1,034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,390
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   675
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,747
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,478
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43


</TABLE>