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



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



I, Anthony Giovinazzo, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Cynapsus Therapeutics Inc.;



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 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;



(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 fiscal 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 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: March 9, 2016 | /s/ Anthony
        Giovinazzo       
|------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                    | Anthony Giovinazzo                   
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    | (principal executive officer)
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2641 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide that residential mortgage 

loans held in portfolio qualify as qualified mortgages for purposes of 

the presumption of the ability to repay requirements under such Act, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2014 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide that residential mortgage loans held in portfolio qualify as qualified 

mortgages for purposes of the presumption of the ability 

to repay requirements under such Act, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LOANS HELD ON PORTFOLIO TREATED AS 

4 QUALIFIED MORTGAGES. 

5 Section 129C(b)(2) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 

6 U.S.C. 1639c(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2641 IS

1 ‘‘(F) LOANS HELD ON PORTFOLIO.—The 

2 term ‘qualified mortgage’ includes a residential 

3 mortgage loan made by a creditor having less 

4 than $10,000,000,000 in total assets so long as 

5 such loan appears on the balance sheet of such 

6 creditor.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

November 22, 2010 

s1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

140336 & (21) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140336 

 COA: 293833 

Wayne CC: 05-005425 

MARIO TIMOTHY JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of July 15, 2010, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the November 23, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we VACATE the sentence of the Wayne Circuit Court and we REMAND this case to the 

trial court for resentencing in light of People v Hendrick, 472 Mich 555 (2005). On 

remand, the trial court shall sentence the defendant within the appropriate sentencing 

guidelines range, or articulate on the record a substantial and compelling reason for 

departing from the sentencing guidelines range in accordance with People v Babcock,

469 Mich 247 (2003).
#### John L. Hardemyer v. James Young.

(No. 853, Op. Book No. 3, p. 502.)

Appeal from Lee County.

February 9, 1881.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 150. *Statement of facts; rulings of the court on evidence, and charge of the court, will not be revised in the absence of.*In the absence of a statement of facts, the rulings of the trial court upon the admission or rejection of testimony, and the charge of the court, will not be revised by the court, but this court will presume that the rulings and charge of the court below were correct. [Fulgham v. Bendy, 23 Tex. 65; Piegzar v. Twohig, 37 Tex. 226; Frost v. Frost, 45 Tex. 337.]

§ 151. *Statement of facts filed after adjournment of court will not be considered.*A paper purporting to be a statement of facts was found in the record, but it was not certified or signed by the trial judge until after the adjournment of the term of court at which the judgment was rendered. The judge appended to this paper a statement that in fact the same was made out in term time, and corrected by him, but through inadvertence he omitted to sign it. *Held,*that however the failure to sign it may have occurred, it was fatal, and this court could not regard the paper as a statement of facts, as the statute then in force imperatively required that it should be made out and signed during the term.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN LEE WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-97-182, CA-00-654-3)

Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Lee Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-97-182; CA00-654-3 (W.D.N.C. June 26, 2001). 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
#### A. Dreiss v. W. Faust.

(No. 7, Op. Book No. 1, p. 252.)

Appeal from Guadalupe County.

Opinion by.

Ector, P. J.

§ 33. *Attachment.*The remedy by attachment is a harsh one, and juries may well require proof that the debtor has violated the law before this harsh remedy should be resorted to.

§ 34. *Attachment; correct rule as to damages in.*In the case of Reed v. Samuels the correct rule is laid down, and that is, if a creditor has been not only harsh and oppressive, but regardless of the rights of his debtor, and has violated the law in the too eager pursuit of his demand, the injured debtor may properly apply to the courts for redress. But the courts should not lend too willing an ear to defendants who present such issues. [22 Tex. 115.] • •

§ 35. *Wrongful suing out of attachment; actual damages. '*Where the attachment is wrongfully sued out, no belief, however firm and sincere, that the grounds set out in the affidavit for attachment are true, can affect the de*21fendant’s right to recover against the creditor the actual damages sustained, if in fact they are untrue. [Drake on Attachments, § 174.]

May 3, 1877.

§ 3 6. *Attachment sued out maliciouly and without probable cause.*If, besides being untrue, the party suing out the attachment acted maliciously and without probable cause for believing the grounds of attachment to be true, he is liable, in addition to the actual, for vindictive or exemplary damages, as a punishment upon him for his wrongful and oppressive use of the process.

§ 37. *Malice and want of probable cause.*Must both concur to support the charge of malicious prosecution. Neither is alone sufficient. If it were malicious and unfounded, but there was probable cause for suing out the attachment, nothing more than the actual damages sustained can be recovered. [2 Greenl. 453; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 407.]

§ 38. *Malice may be implied from want of probable cav,se.*[Culberson v. Cabeen, 29 Tex. 255.]

Affirmed.
#### Sanger Bros. v. Ker & Machon.

(No. 1258, Op. Book No. 2, p. 347.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1081. *Jurisdiction as to amount; fraudulent attempt to confer.*Generally the question of jurisdiction as to the subject matter is determined by the amount claimed in the petition, but if it be shown to the satisfaction of the court, by proper pleading and competent evidence, that the plaintiff had, in stating his demands, thereby improperly sought to give jurisdiction where it did not belong, the cause would be dismissed. [Bridge v. Ballew, 11 Tex. 270.]

§ 1082. *Same; when it has*attached, *judgment may he for less than jurisdictional amount.*When jurisdiction has rightfully attached in the county court upon a demand for more than $200, judgment may be rendered by that court for the amount found to be justly due the plaintiff, although such amount may be less than $200. [Bridge v. Ballew, 11 Tex. 269; Tarbox v. Kennon, 3 Tex. 7; Austin & Clapp v. Jordan, 5 Tex. 130; Ellett v. Powers, 8 Tex. 113.]

§1083. *Arrest of judgment; grounds for.*Appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment was based upon the ground that the evidence showed that the amount of the account with which the firm was properly chargeable was not within the jurisdiction of the county court. The rpotion was properly overruled. The question could not be raised in that way. It is well settled that matters apparent upon the record are alone available to arrest the judgment. [Denison v. League, 16 Tex. 399.]

§ 1084. *Discontinuance as to party not served.*The statute expressly authorizes the plaintiff, when there are several defendants in a suit, some of wTiom have been served and others not, to discontinue as to those not served, and proceed against those served. [Pas. Dig. 1448; R. S. 1256.]

*613April 13, 1881.

§ 1085. *Partnership; service upon, and judgment against.*It is provided by statute that where suit is instituted against a partnership, service of process upon one of the partners shall be sufficient notice to all the members of the firm, the judgment in such case to be rendered against the partnership property and the individual property of the partners who may have *<*been served. [Pas. Dig. 1514; R. S. 1224, 1346.]

§ 1086. *Partnership assets cannot be applied by mem-. her of firm to pay his individual debt, etc.*One partner cannot apply the partnership funds or securities to the discharge of his own private debt without the consent of the other members of the firm, and such a disposition of partnership assets will not be binding upon the firm or its creditors. [Goode v. McCartney, 10 Tex. 193.]

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are                           ( print page 56536)                        set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).                

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 1, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                

*1. The Margaret E. Thelen Revocable Trust dated January 5, 2000, Margaret E. Thelen, Trustee, Baxter, Minnesota, individually, and with John A. Thelen, Jr., Baxter, Minnesota; Nancy M. Shipman, Brainerd, Minnesota; Sharon M. Watland, Baxter, Minnesota; Robert T. Thelen, Baxter, Minnesota; Michael J. Thelen, Nisswa, Minnesota; Kathryn M. Stalheim, Oviedo, Florida; Steven D. Thelen, Tampa, Florida; Luke D. Shipman, Brainerd, Minnesota; Daniel J. Shipman, Brainerd, Minnesota; Elizabeth A. Shipman, Breezy Point, Minnesota; and Adam J. Shipman, Brainerd, Minnesota, as a group acting in concert;*                     to retain control of American Bancorporation of Minnesota, Inc., Brainerd, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of American National Bank of Minnesota, Baxter, Minnesota.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 13, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-23109 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) FOR COMMERCE NATIONAL CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARY DATED JUNE 30, 1999 AND DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,148,999
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         800,843
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,400,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,801,875
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      19,169,547
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        18,801,875
<LOANS>                                    136,556,233
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,476,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             171,321,008
<DEPOSITS>                                 148,193,383
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,575,031
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,120,834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,282
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,357,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             171,321,008
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,636,838
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              454,227
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                77,004
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,168,069
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,552,727
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,745,830
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,422,239
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  198,762
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,474,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,213,822
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,213,822
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   772,585
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   0.043
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,337,941
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               806,334
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,137,251
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,323,143
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   47,713
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,559
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,476,751
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,476,751
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        523,658


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


ENTITY NAME

Advanced Imaging Partners, Inc.
Advanced Medical Imaging, Inc.
Advanced PET Imaging of Maryland, L.P.
Advanced Radiology, LLC
APP Imaging Partners, Inc.
Community Imaging Partners, Inc.
Ide Imaging Partners, Inc.
Lakewood OpenScan MRI, L.L.C.
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 Atlanta, Inc.
Questar Cleveland, Inc.
Questar Columbus, Inc.
Questar Des Plaines, Inc.
Questar Duluth, Inc.
Questar Henderson, Inc.
Questar HFMC, Inc.
Questar Imaging MB, Inc.
Questar Imaging, Inc.
Questar Kansas, Inc.
Questar Lincoln, Inc.
Questar Los Alamitos, Inc.
Questar Lower Bucks, Inc.
Questar Mt. Laurel, Inc.
Questar Naperville, Inc.
Questar North Georgia, Inc.
Questar Orlando, Inc.
Questar Palm Springs, Inc.
Questar Philadelphia, Inc.
Questar PVH, Inc.
Questar Quakertown, Inc.
Questar San Francisco, Inc.
Questar South Chicago, Inc.
Questar Tampa, Inc.
Questar Toledo, Inc.
Questar TriStates, Inc.
Questar Tucson, Inc.
Questar Victorville, Inc.
Questar West Palm, 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.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 4.4

(incorporated  by reference from  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2003)



                                       13
<PAGE>
#### J. S. Cox v. Owen Lloyd.

(No. 846, Op. Book No. 3, p. 471.)

Appeal from Bexar County.

February 2, 1881.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 123. *Joinder of causes of action.*If A. takes the property of B., B. has the right to sequester and thereby regain possession of his property. If the property was taken by A. in a vindictive, insulting or malicious manner, B. has the right to recover of A. exemplary damages. If B. has incurred expense in making search for his property taken by A., the necessity for such being caused by the act of A., he is entitled to recover reasonable compensation therefor; and under our system of practice these several matters may be joined in the same suit.

Reversed and remanded.