alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Craig K. Tagawa, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Shared Hospital Services;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; andb) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986;] andc) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (or the fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):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 registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.August 14, 2007       /s/ Craig K. Tagawa Craig K. Tagawa    Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE v. HAYWOOD (HAZEL) MITCHELL.

(Filed 29 November, 1939.)

•Criminal Law § 80—

When defendant fails to make out and serve Ms statement of case on appeal witMn the time allowed, no agreement for extension of time having been made, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 17, but when defendant stands convicted of a capital crime this will be done only after an inspection of the record fails to disclose error.

MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was tried at July Term, 1939, of Mecklenburg Superior Court, upon an indictment charging him with *545tbe murder of George Green, and convieted of murder in tbe first degree. Judgment of death in tbe manner prescribed by law was thereupon rendered. Tbe defendant gave notice of appeal to tbe Supreme Court and was allowed forty-five days in which to make up and serve bis case on appeal, and tbe solicitor was allowed thirty days thereafter to make up and serve countercase or file exceptions.

Tbe Attorney-General makes and files a motion to docket and dismiss tbe appeal, under Rule 17, for tbe reason that defendant has failed to perfect and prosecute tbe same, and therewith files transcript of tbe case and certificate of tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, showing that tbe appeal was not perfected within tbe time provided by law, and that no agreement for an extension of time to file case on appeal has been made. Tbe time for serving case on appeal has expired.

Tbe appeal must be dismissed. Tbe Court, however, has carefully examined tbe record in tbe case as docketed in this Court and finds no error. *S. v. Goldston,*201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926; *S. v. Day,*215 N. C., 566, 2 S. E. (2d), 569; *S. v. Mayes, ante,*542.

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3074-2    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 16:00:20    Page 1of 2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3074-2    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 16:00:20    Page 2of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERCELL
CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         246,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,925,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,806,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,350,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,668,000
<COMMON>                                    21,327,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (27,381,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,806,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,347,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             328,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,717,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,547,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (3,170,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,929,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
#### VALLIE FULK THORPE v. ROBERT O. BURNS and MARY H. BURNS t/a TERMINIX COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA.

(Filed 28 November, 1956.)

Courts § 4b—

Where the record supports the finding that notice of appeal to the Superior Court from a municipal-county court was not given within the ■time required by statute, order of the Superior Court afiirming the judgment of the municipal-county court and dismissing the appeal will be sustained.

Johnson, J., not sitting.

*104Appeal by defendants from *Preyer, J.,*9 January, 1956 Civil Term, GuilfoRD Superior Court.

Civil action instituted in the Municipal-County Court, Guilford County, on 7 July, 1955, for the recovery of $330.53 damages for breach of contract. The defendants did not answer, though duly served with summons and copies of the complaint. Judgment by default and inquiry was entered 16 August, 1955, and on 1 September, 1955, the court, after hearing evidence, on the inquiry as to amount of damages, adjudged the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of $330.53. On 1 September, 1955, the day of the inquiry, “without notice or knowing of the default judgments already entered in the cause, the defendants forwarded to the Municipal-County Court and caused to be filed . . . answer to the plaintiff’s complaint.” From the judgment on the inquiry, the defendants appealed to the Superior Court of Guilford County.

In the Superior Court the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among others, that answer had not been filed and that notice of appeal was not timely given. Judge Preyer, after hearing, found facts in accordance with the plaintiff’s motion and on 8 February, 1956, signed judgment affirming the judgment of the Municipal-County Court and dismissing the appeal. The defendants appealed to this Court, assigning errors.

*Shuping & Shuping for plaintiff, appellee.*

*George M. Anderson for defendants, appellants.*

PER CuRiam.

The record supports the findings of Judge Preyer that notice of appeal to the Superior Court was not given within the time required by the statute. The order affirming the judgment of the Municipal-County Court and dismissing the appeal from that court was warranted by the findings and is in accordance with law.

Appeal dismissed.

Joi-iNSON, J., not sitting.
#### EDWIN JAMES v. FARMERS PEANUT COMPANY.

(Filed 19 February, 1930.)

Master and Servant D a — The letter of an independent contract is not ordinarily liable for injury to employee of independent contractor.

The owner of a building is not liable in damages to an employee of an independent contractor injured while engaged in painting the building under the independent contract therefor.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Moore, Special Judge,*at October Term, 1929, of PasquotaNK.

Affirmed.

Action to recover damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, and alleged to bave been caused by tbe negligence of defendant.

It is conceded that at tbe time plaintiff was injured, be was at work as tbe employee of an independent contractor, on a building owned by tbe defendant.

From judgment dismissing tbe action as upon nonsuit, at tbe close of tbe evidence for plaintiff (O. S., 567), plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*Thompson & Wilson for plaintiff.*

*Ehringhaus & Hall, Hughes, Little & Sea\well and Worth & Horner for defendant.*

Pee Cubiam.

Tbe evidence offered by plaintiff at tbe trial of tbis action fails to show a breach by defendant of any duty which tbe defendant owed to tbe plaintiff. Plaintiff was not an employee of defendant; be was tbe employee of an independent contractor, who bad undertaken by bis contract with defendant to paint a building owned by defendant. Plaintiff was injured while at work as tbe employee of tbe independent contractor.

Tbe general rule that tbe eontractee is not liable for injuries to employees of an independent contractor, where such injuries are caused by tbe negligence of tbe latter, is applicable to tbe facts shown by tbe evidence in tbe instant case. 39 C. J., 1341. Upon these facts, exceptions to tbis rule, recognized and applied in *Paderick v. Lumber Co.,*190 N. C., 308, 130 S. E., 29, and in *Greer v. Const. Co.,*190 N. C., 632, 130 S. E., 739, are not applicable. There is no error in tbe judgment.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to the annual report of NeurogesX, Inc. on Form
10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of NeurogesX, Inc.

Dated: June 30, 2011



By:

/s/ Anthony A. DiTonnoAnthony A. DiTonnoPresident and Chief Executive Officer   (Principal Executive Officer)By:

/s/ Stephen F. GhiglieriStephen F. GhiglieriExecutive Vice President, Chief Operating   Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 34.1.5.2

 

[Letterhead of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP]

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Stockholder of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Reporting Period”), for asset-backed securities transactions backed by prime residential mortgages serviced on the Real Estate (“RE”) servicing system where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period (the “Platform”), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii); 1122(d)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii); 1122(d)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv); 1122(d)(4)(iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), and (xv), whichthe Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors thatmay have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the asset-backed securities transactions backed by prime residential mortgages serviced on the Real Estate (“RE”) servicing system where the related asset backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

**/s/*****PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP***

 

February 25, 2008
#### William H. McDonald, Appellant, v. The Binghamton Trust Company, Receiver etc., of The Supreme Sitting of the Order of the Iron Hall, Respondent.

(See Stipulation.)*
Exhibit 31.1          **CERTIFICATION**
I, Robert C. Salipante, certify that: 

1.	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.);

2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; 

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

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; 

(b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238];

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: November 14, 2005
 */s/ Robert C. Salipante                       
Robert C. Salipante  
President*
Exhibit 32.2
                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of Advanced Battery
Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter period ended June 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, Guohua Wan, Chief Financial Officer of Advanced Battery Technologies,
Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 results of operations
of the Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. as of and for the period
covered by the Report.

     Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not
deemed filed.


Dated:  August 19, 2005                /s/ Guohua Wan
                                       -----------------------
                                       Guohua Wan
                                       Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50307

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO BENITEZ-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Alfonso RodriguezBenitez, also known as Valentin Benitez-Rodriguez, also known as

Onesimo Benitz, also known as Samuel Benitez Noblez, also known

as Valentine Benitez, also known as Onesimo Ponce,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-249-ALL

--------------------

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfonso BenitezRodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States

v. Scroggins, 411 F.3d 572, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2005), which held

that the Due Process Clause does not bar the application of

Justice Breyer’s remedy opinion in United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738 (2005), when resentencing defendants in light of
No. 05-50307

-2-

Booker, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing

factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal

offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.