alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I,Yoav M. Cohen, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vision-Sciences, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, thisreport 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 myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in the report;

 

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the 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, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Dated: February 19, 2008 | /s/ Yoav M. Cohen       |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                          | Yoav M. Cohen           |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
|   | 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      Company. |

| Dated:      March  25, 2009 | By:      /s/ Michael      Forster            |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Michael      Forster                                                                                |
|                             | Chief      Executive Officer                                                                        |
<PAGE>




                               Exhibit 23.01

                           Consent of Accountant

</Page>
<PAGE>

/Letterhead/
                           Schvaneveldt & Company
                        Certified Public Accountant
                     275 East South Temple, Suite #300
                         Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
                               (801) 521-2392

Darrell T. Schvaneveldt, C.P.A.


                    Consent of Darrell T. Schvaneveldt
                            Independent Auditor




     I consent to the use, of our report dated April 12, 2000, on the
financial statements of The Quantum Group, Inc., and Subsdiaries,  dated
December 31, 1999, included herein and to the reference made to me.



S/ Schvaneveldt & Company
Salt Lake City, Utah
April 14, 2000
#### City of Columbus, Appellee, *v.*Meadley, Appellant.

(No. 3863

Decided March 5, 1946.)

*Mr. Glenn E. Kemp,*police prosecutor, for appellee.

*Mr. E. E. Addison*and *Mr. Abraha-m Gertner,*for appellant.

*491Hornbeck, P. J.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for possessing slips intended to be used as evidence of ownership of a number of shares in a scheme of chance in violation of Section 1089-1 of the Ordinances of the city of Columbus, Ohio.

We do not state the exact offense of which the defendant was convicted because neither the affidavit nor the specific finding of the judge is in the transcript of docket and journal entries nor is it found among the files in the case.

The appeal raises two questions:

The first is whether the admission of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure deprived the defendant of his liberty or property without due process, contrary to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. We have heretofore, in the case of *City of Columbus*v. *Smith,*78 Ohio App., 66, held against the contention of defendant as to this question on the authority of *State*v. *Lindway,*131 Ohio St., 166, 2 N. E. (2d), 490, paragraphs four and five of the syllabus.

The second question arises from the claimed error that “the defendant was denied the right to know upon whose accusation he had been arrested and that the court erred in refusing to allow the officers to divulge the source of their information.”

No authorities are cited in support of this assignment of error. It is not specifically directed to any violation of statute or constitutional provision. The only provision of either of our constitutions which could be in contemplation by the claim of defendant is Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution has application only to procedure in federal courts.

The applicable section of the Ohio Constitution, insofar as pertinent to the question here, provides:

*492“In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel; to *demand the nature and cause of the accusation against*him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses *face to face,*and to have compulsory process to procure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf * * V’ (Emphasis ours.)

It does not appear that this provision was violated in any particular.

The gist of the claim of defendant is that he had the right to know the name of any person who informed the police or law-enforcing officials of the connection of the defendant with the offense for which he was prosecuted. We know of no such assured right.

It is claimed that the affidavit in the case did not meet essential requirements in particulars. The form of affidavit is provided by Section 13432-18, General Code. There is nothing in this case to indicate that the affiant was not qualified to make the affidavit, or any irregularity or. invalidity respecting it. We find no right of the defendant violated as claimed under the second error assigned.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Wiseman and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains summary financial information extracted from Penn Octane
Corporation's  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for the quarterly period ended
January 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial
Statements.  
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                     1055232 
<SECURITIES>                                     0 
<RECEIVABLES>                              2239131 
<ALLOWANCES>                                 53406 
<INVENTORY>                                 811008 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           4946202 
<PP&E>                                     5265232 
<DEPRECIATION>                             1400628 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             9620632 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      6374553 
<BONDS>                                    1080000 
<COMMON>                                     96945 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0 
<PREFERRED>                                      0 
<OTHER-SE>                                 2069134 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               9620632 
<SALES>                                   18295058 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          18295058 
<CGS>                                     16855460 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             16855460 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1255953 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          166280 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             134229 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         134229 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0 
<CHANGES>                                        0 
<NET-INCOME>                                134229 
   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.01)
    
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARK A. SAVIDGE.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
### MAY 0 9 2022
A. BROWN E COURT DEPUTY LERK 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
No. 83482 

# FILED ERIC GARZA, Appellant,

vs. STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION; THE STATE OF NEVADA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION; ELISA CAFERRATA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF DETER; LYNDA PARVEN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESD; AND ROSA MENDEZ, IN HER OFFICAL CAPACITY, Res • ondents.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss appellant's complaint. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tara D. Clark Newberry, Judge.

On March 2, 2022, this court entered an order directing appellant to file the opening brief or informal brief form for pro se parties. Pursuant to that order, the brief was due by March 16, 2022. This court cautioned that failure to timely file the brief could result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not filed the brief or otherwise



# 14-9-0 SUMER% COURT OF NEVADA
( f ) I947A 408111.J

communicated with this court. Accordingly, it appears appellant has abandoned this appeal, and this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.



# %.1Z64,2,0 Silver
-1.

1 1 r * /•) Cadish

cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge Eric Garza State of Nevada/DETR Eighth District Court Clerk > J.

1 J

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A .01Do 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 21



                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                          CAPSTONE CAPITAL CORPORATION



     Name of Subsidiary                               State of Organization
     ------------------                               ---------------------

     Capstone Capital of Alabama, Inc.                Alabama
     Capstone Capital of Baytown, Inc.                Alabama
     Capstone Capital of Bonita Bay, Inc.             Alabama
     Capstone Capital of California, Inc.             Alabama
     Capstone Capital of Cape Coral, Inc.             Alabama
     Capstone Capital of Las Vegas, Inc.              Alabama
     Capstone Capital of Pennsylvania, Inc.           Pennsylvania
     Capstone Capital of Sarasota, Inc.               Alabama
     Capstone Capital of Texas, Inc.                  Alabama
#### JANE T. RUSZKOWSKI, ET AL. v. JAROSALU BEZUSHKO.

September 26, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  204,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    490,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               701,703
<PP&E>                                         229,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,355,358 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,300,503
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         9,457
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,678,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,355,358
<SALES>                                      2,872,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,907,679
<CGS>                                        1,895,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,302,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               241,809
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (228,820)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1
  SUBSIDIARIES
    OF THE COMPANY UPDATE ACCORDINGLY FOR 2008
  Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of IncorporationTMNG.COM, Inc.

DelawareTMNG Europe Ltd.

England and WalesTMNG Canada Ltd.

CanadaTMNG Marketing, Inc.

MarylandTMNG Technologies, Inc.

DelawareCambridge Strategic Management Group, Inc., (formerly TMNG
    Strategy, Inc.)

DelawareCambridge Adventis Ltd.

England and WalesTMNG China Ltd.

ChinaRVA Consulting, LLC

New JerseyTWG Consulting, Inc.

KansasCartesian Ltd.

England and Wales
#### John G. Taylor *v.*John Farley.

Costs — Plaintiff Entitled to His Costs When Petition Corrects Errors.

Where in a petition by the plaintiff he succeeds in correcting mistakes charged therein, he is entitled to recover his costs, though the petition may not be sustained and relief granted as prayed for.

APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

June 11, 1868.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Robertson :

We are satisfied that when the partnership was dissolved, the parties made a settlement including all accounts between them, except uncollected debts and some personal articles, and that those debts and articles have been satisfactorily adjusted *pendente lite.*

And we are unable to see that there was any essential mistake in the settlement which has not been corrected by the decree appealed from. The first judgment for $100 in appellant’s favor for mistake against him, was afterwards properly corrected and reduced to $50; and the appellant, having gotten the $50 ,is not entitled to more than one half of the rent for 1848 adjudged to him as erroneously charged in the books kept by the appellee.

*244
      *Turner, for appellant. . .*

*BrecJc, for appellee.*

Wherefore^ perceiving no essential error in the judgment on the partnership accounts we affirm it.

But, as the appellant succeeded in correcting mistakes charged in his petition, it ceems to us he was entitled to a judgment for his costs, and that in adjudging that he should pay his own costs the Circuit Oourt erred; and that judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for correction of it. But as each party has partially succeeded on the appeal there will be no judgment for costs in this court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Flora,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00517-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/26/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 938 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 938 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
#### F. W. Stemmell et al *v.*Thos. C. Waters.

Instruction.

An instruction which in effect tells the jury that the measure of compensation for the injury complained of in the petition, is double the fair and reasonable rent of his property for the time he was wrongfully kept out of possession, is held not improper and erroneous.

Attorney’s Fee — Two Causes in One Petition.

"Where two causes of action are joined in one petition, only one attor. ney fee can be taxed against the defendant.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

November 27, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The second instruction given for appellee upon a case made out, as this court understands it, would be the law- — which in effect tells the jury that the measure of compensation for the injury ’ complained of, is double the fair and reasonable rent of his property for the time he was wrongfully kept out of possession, and this we think is the clear understanding of the opinion. A *bonus*is not provided for in the statute and we do not as at present advised, feel authorized to say that it should form any part of the recovery, and as to the attorney’s fee both causes of action are joined in one petition and we are not aware of any law that authorized the allowance of a separate attorney’s fee for each branch of the case. This is to be taken as a modification of the opinion and rehearing refused.

(See original opinion 2 Bush 282, 65 Ky. Rep.)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Meagan Chappell","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mchappe3\/","title":"Advancing Human Spaceflight Safety","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Ffshmu2yHK\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nesc\/advancing-human-spaceflight-safety\/\">Advancing Human Spaceflight Safety<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nesc\/advancing-human-spaceflight-safety\/embed\/#?secret=Ffshmu2yHK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Advancing Human Spaceflight Safety” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Ffshmu2yHK\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/techup2023-pg58-61-art2.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":207}