alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Neil M. Kurtz, M.D.,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. for the quarterended September 30, 2007;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2007
|   |   | /s/ Neil M. Kurtz, M.D.                |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Neil M. Kurtz, M.D.                    |
|   |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal Executive  Officer)         |

 

----
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001007588
<NAME> DECISIONONE HOLDINGS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          34,659
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,066
<INVENTORY>                                     15,859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,390
<PP&E>                                          65,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 455,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          916,217
<BONDS>                                            674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           126
<OTHER-SE>                                   (467,282)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   455,887
<SALES>                                        725,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               725,943
<CGS>                                          575,063
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  575,063
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               149,319
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (80,240)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (105,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (105,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (8.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (8.40)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11




                                                       For The Years Ended
                                                              July 31
                                                        2002           2001
                                                     ---------     -----------


Shares outstanding                                   8,400,899       6,954,699
                                                   -----------     -----------
Weighted average shares outstanding                  7,607,146       6,420,926
Stock Options                                        3,691,250       1,815,625
Warrants                                                    --       1,797,500
                                                   -----------     -----------
      Total weighted average shares outstanding     11,298,396      10,034,051
                                                   ===========     ===========

Net loss from continuing operations                 (2,251,439)     (1,577,033)

Loss from discontinued operations                     (193,454)       (205,191)
                                                   -----------     -----------
Net loss                                          $ (2,444,893)   $ (1,782,224)
                                                  ============    ============

Basic and diluted net loss per share
      Continuing operations                       $      (0.30)   $      (0.25)
      Discontinued operations                            (0.02)          (0.03)
                                                   -----------     -----------
      Net loss                                    $      (0.32)   $      (0.28)
                                                   ===========     ===========
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT EDWARD LEE,

Plaintiff, No. 14-11722

v. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

SAI LI, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Lee, proceeding pro se, has filed a self-styled “Motion to Extend

Time for Answer to Order or This Amend Motion” [Doc. #29]. It is not at all clear what

Mr. Lee is requesting. Discovery has been stayed pending resolution of timely filed

motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), and those motions are not due until July 16, 2015.

To the extent, then, that Mr. Lee is requesting reconsideration of the Court’s June

16, 2015 order denying without prejudice his request for discovery [Doc. #27], his motion

would be denied.

The time for filing a response to a dispositive motion, such as a motion under Rule

12(c), is 21 days. If Mr. Lee is asking for additional time to respond to Defendant’s

anticipated Rule 12(c) motion–and I believe this is the fairest reading of his motion– I

will grant that request, in deference to the fact that he is not represented by counsel.

Accordingly, Mr. Lee’s motion [Doc. #29] is construed as a request for additional

time to respond to Defendant’s anticipated Rule 12(c) motion, and is GRANTED.

Mr. Lee must file a response to a timely filed defense motion for judgment on the

pleadings no later that 42 days after he receives the Defendant’s motion. Because Mr. Lee

-1-

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 07/13/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 247
is not an e-filer, he will be presumed to have received a copy of the Defendant’s motion

five days after the Defendant mails it to him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Date: July 13, 2015

Certificate of Service

I certify that a copy of this order was served upon parties of record via electronic

or postal mail. 

/s/A. Chubb 

DEPUTY CLERK

-2-

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 07/13/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 248
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Christopher Pizzo, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Network Installation Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.                      Date: August 14,  2006  /s/   Christopher  G.  Pizzo   Christopher  G.  Pizzo   Chief  Financial  Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 24.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No. 333-18947) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-4562) of BEC Group, Inc. of our report dated January 20, 1995, with respect
to the statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows of Bolle
America, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1994, which report appears in the
December 31, 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K of BEC Group, Inc.



                                               KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 25, 1997
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.037-6 Container. ( a ) *General.* The container for storing the signals on lifeboats and liferafts is not required to be of a special design or be approved by the Coast Guard. The container must meet the requirements in subpart 160.021 (§ 160.021-6) except that the wording on the container must be: “Hand Orange Smoke Distress Signals.”
( b ) [Reserved]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending September 9, 2006

|Filer                     | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                               | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|FIRST CHARTER CORPORATION | * 3A5         | First Charter Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of GBC Bancorp, Inc., Lawrenceville, Georgia, and thereby indirectly acquire Gwinnett Banking Company, Lawrenceville, Georgia. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                | Not available
|Federal Register:         | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location              | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|----------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|VIRGINIA CMNTY BK, LOUISA, VIRGINIA | 105222 | 05/22/2006 | 08/16/2006     | O         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 26, 2012

h1217 

# Order

December 26, 2012

145438

ROBERT A. KRUEGER and PHYLLIS

G. KRUEGER,

Petitioners

- Appellees,

v SC: 145438

COA: 302246

MTT: 00

- 342850

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2011204EN.01002702.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/27

---

Action brought on 10 May 2011 — Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (Representation of a chicken)

(Case T-249/11)

2011/C 204/49

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sanco SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Segura Roda, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marsalman SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Hold that the action brought against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 17 February 2011 in Case R 1073/2010-2 is brought in time and in the prescribed manner, and in due course annul that decision, refuse registration of the Community mark No 6.675.383 for all its Classes and order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Hold that the action brought against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 17 February 2011 in Case R 1073/2010-2 is brought in time and in the prescribed manner, and in due course annul that decision, refuse registration of the Community mark No 6.675.383 for all its Classes and order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Marsalman SL

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark without text containing the graphic representation of a chicken framed in a semicircle (application for registration No 6.675.383) for goods in Class 29 and services in Classes 35 and 39.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish mark without text containing the graphic representation of a chicken framed in an oval (No 2.727.182) for goods in Classes 29 and 31.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial upholding of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.372 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.373 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.374 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.375 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.376 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.377 Filed 04/07/15 Page 6 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.378 Filed 04/07/15 Page 7 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.379 Filed 04/07/15 Page 8 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.380 Filed 04/07/15 Page 9 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.381 Filed 04/07/15 Page 10 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.382 Filed 04/07/15 Page 11 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.383 Filed 04/07/15 Page 12 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.384 Filed 04/07/15 Page 13 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.385 Filed 04/07/15 Page 14 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.386 Filed 04/07/15 Page 15 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.387 Filed 04/07/15 Page 16 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.388 Filed 04/07/15 Page 17 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.389 Filed 04/07/15 Page 18 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.390 Filed 04/07/15 Page 19 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.391 Filed 04/07/15 Page 20 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.392 Filed 04/07/15 Page 21 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.393 Filed 04/07/15 Page 22 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.394 Filed 04/07/15 Page 23 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.395 Filed 04/07/15 Page 24 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.396 Filed 04/07/15 Page 25 of 26
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-7, PageID.397 Filed 04/07/15 Page 26 of 26
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

p0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140828

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140828 COA: 295823 Presque Isle CC: 08-092505-FC KYLE JAY STACHNIK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending February 25, 2006

----

Bank Holding CompaniesSky Financial Group, Inc., Bowling Green, Ohio  -- to acquire through Sky Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, up to 9.99 percent of the shares of LNB Bancorp, Inc., Lorain, Ohio, and thereby acquire an interest in The Lorain National Bank.					-Approved, February 24, 2006 					

FormsForms  -- final Board review to revise without extension the Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-11) and Financial Statements of Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations (FR 2314).					-Approved, February 22, 2006 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: March 2, 2006