alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Rahoul Sharan, CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of One Voice Technologies,
Inc.;

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
         material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
         is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report (the
         "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

March 30, 2004

/s/ Rahoul Sharan
Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of IVAX Diagnostics, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin D. Clark, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, 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: March 31, 2008       
|                           
|/s/ Kevin D. Clark         
|Kevin D. Clark,            
|Principal Executive Officer
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15076-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 16 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 10 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 2 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 3 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 4 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 5 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 6 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 7 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 8 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 9 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 10 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 11 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 5-5 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 14 of 14
#### STATE v. PREVETTE

No. 45 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 470.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 April 1979. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 April 1979.
#### STATE v. TURNER

No. 37.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 608.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 August 1974. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 13 August 1974.
#### PATRICIA L. EDWARDS v. TYRONE AKION and the CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

No. 94

(Filed 1 December 1981)

APPEAL pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) of the decision of the Court of Appeals *(Judge Barry C. Martin,*with *Chief Judge Morris*concurring, and *Judge Hill*dissenting) reported at 52 N.C. App. 688, 279 S.E. 2d 894 (1981), reversing the order of summary judgment entered for the City of Raleigh by *Farmer, Judge,*at the 11 August 1980 Civil Session of Superior Court, WAKE County.

Plaintiff filed this action for compensatory and punitive damages as a result of personal injuries1 she suffered during an *586affray with defendant City’s employee Tyrone Akion, a refuse collector in the Sanitation Department. Plaintiff sought recovery from the City upon two theories: (1) its secondary or vicarious liability for an employee’s commission of an intentional tort and (2) its primary liability for negligent supervision of an employee. Upon a hearing of the matter, the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment in the cause.

The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the entry of summary judgment. In so doing, the Court held that: (1) the City’s insurance policy provided coverage for the commission of intentional torts by its employees, if such actions were committed within the scope of employment and (2) upon this record, there were material issues of fact as to whether defendant Akion committed the assault and battery upon plaintiff within the scope of his employment and whether the City had failed to supervise Akion properly on the occasion of this incident. Judge Hill dissented upon the ground that the commission of the assault was not within the scope of employment as a matter of law.

*DeMent, Askew & Gaskins, by Johnny S. Gaskins, for plaintiff-appe lie e.*

*Teague, Campbell, Conely & Dennis, by R. B. Conely, for defendant-appe llant.*

1

. The deposition of Dr. Carroll Mann, a neurological surgeon, disclosed that these injuries were quite severe and extensive and included some permanent brain damage.

Per Curiam.

We hereby adopt the reasoning of the Court of Appeal’s opinion and affirm its decision in all respects.

Affirmed.
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



| | 1. |  | 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:  May 6, 2004 | /S/CRAIG E. LABARGE
|                    |                     | Craig E. LaBarge
Chief Executive Officer and President













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



| | 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 Company.





|                    |  |                                                                
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  May 6, 2004 | 
|                    |  | /S/DONALD H. NONNENKAMP                                        
|                    |  | Donald H. Nonnenkamp
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6222

NATHANIEL GLENN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CANNON, Investigator; CHRISTIAN BROCK; CHRIS

MARCHI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(CA-03-1582-6-27)

Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Glenn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin,

HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Glenn, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

December 21, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on January 25,

2005.*

 Because Glenn failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
tme-ex447_402.htm



Exhibit 4.47

Spouse Consent Letter

 

The undersigned, Jiang Shibo, (Identification No.: []), is the lawful spouse of Gao Yaping (Identification No.: [], “My Spouse”).  I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree to the execution of the following documents by My Spouse as of March 26, 2018 (the “Transaction Documents”) and the disposal of the equity interest of Guangzhou Kugou Computer Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Domestic Company”) held by My Spouse pursuant to the provisions of the following documents:

 


	
(1)
	
The equity interest pledge agreement by and among Gao Yaping, Tencent Music (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “WFOE”), the Domestic Company and other parties;





	
(2)
	
The exclusive option agreement by and among Gao Yaping, the WFOE, the Domestic Company and other parties; and





	
(3)
	
The voting trust agreement by and among Gao Yaping, the WFOE, the Domestic Company and other parties.




 

I hereby confirm that I do not enjoy any interests or rights in the Domestic Company and hereby undertake not to make any assertions in respect of the equity interest of the Domestic Company held by My Spouse.  I further confirm that, My Spouse can perform the Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the Transaction Documents or execute other agreements to replace the Transaction Documents absent any authorization or consent from me.

 

I hereby agree and undertake that, if I acquire any equity interests in the Domestic Company for whatever reasons, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time) and shall comply with the obligations of a shareholder of the Domestic Company thereunder. For this purpose, upon the WFOE’s requests, I shall execute a series of written documents in substantially the same format and content as the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time).

 

 

Signature:/s/ Jiang Shibo

Date: November 29, 2018
#### STATE v. SHELTON

No. 64 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 632.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 3 March 1982.
#### STATE v. MOORE

No. 184P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 258.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 July 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 13 July 1982.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the William Lyon Homes 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the William Lyon Homes Executive
Deferred Compensation Plan of our reports dated February 15, 2002, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of William Lyon Homes and the combined
financial statements of the Significant Subsidiaries of William Lyon Homes
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Irvine, California
March 13, 2002
Exhibit 4.1


 





DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S
SECURITIES 


REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE



SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 


As of March 26, 2020, the only class
of Air Industries Group’s securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the “Exchange Act”) is its Common Stock.


Description of Common Stock


The following description of our Common
Stock is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject to and qualified in its entirety by reference to our Amended
and Restated Articles of Incorporation (the “Articles of Incorporation”) and our Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”),
each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part.
We encourage you to read our Articles of Incorporation, our Bylaws and the applicable provisions of Chapter 78 of the Revised Nevada
Statutes for additional information.


Authorized Capital Shares 


Our authorized capital shares consist
of 60,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share (“Common Stock”), and 3,000,000 shares of series
preferred stock, $0.001 par value per share (“Preferred Stock”). The outstanding shares of our Common Stock are fully
paid and nonassessable.


Voting Rights


Holders of Common Stock are entitled
to one vote per share on all matters voted on by the stockholders, including the election of directors. Our Common Stock does not
have cumulative voting rights.


Dividend Rights


Subject to the rights of holders of
outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, if any, the holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends, if any, as may be
declared from time to time by the Board of Directors in its discretion out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends.


Liquidation Rights


Subject to any preferential rights of
outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, holders of Common Stock will share ratably in all assets legally available for distribution
to our stockholders in the event of dissolution.


Other Rights and Preferences


Our Common Stock has no sinking fund
or redemption provisions or preemptive, conversion or exchange rights. Holders of Common Stock may act by unanimous written consent.


Listing


The Common Stock is traded on the NYSE
American under the trading symbol “AIRI.”
No. _______________ 

IN THE 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TEXAS 

IN RE GARCIA GLEN WHITE, 

Petitioner 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION 

THIS IS A DEATH PENALTY CASE 

MR. WHITE IS SCHEDULED TO BE EXECUTED ON JANUARY 28, 2015 

Patrick F. McCann Mandy Miller 

SBOT 00792680 SBOT 24055561 

909 Texas Ave #205 2910 Commer. Ctr. Blvd, Ste 103-201 

Houston, TX 77002 Katy, TX 77494 

713-223-3805 832-900-9884 

writlawyer@justice.com mandy@mandymillerlegal.com

WR-48,152-07

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 1/19/2015 12:00:00 AM

Accepted 1/20/2015 9:29:14 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 1/20/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
Comes now the Petitioner and asks this Court for Leave to File a Petitioner for 

Writ of Prohibition under its powers within the Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 

5(c).

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Patrick F. McCann_______________

PATRICK F. MCCANN (SBOT 00792680)

MANDY MILLER(SBOT 24055561)

909 Texas Ave #205

Houston, Texas 77002

713-223-3805

713-226-8097 FAX

writlawyer@justice.com

mandy@mandymillerlegal.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

GARCIA GLEN WHITE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Patrick F. McCann do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above 

and foregoing has been served on January 19, 2015, via email delivery to the State of 

Texas at: Lynn Hardaway, HARDAWAY_LYNN@dao.hctx.net.

/s/ Patrick F. McCann_______________

Patrick F. McCann
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7744

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE FERREIRA, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-432-A, CA-97-637-AM) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Ferreira, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jose Ferreira seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ferreira , No. CR-90-432-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED