alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**IMAGIN
MOLECULAR CORPORATION**
 **(Formerly
Known As)**
 **Cipher
Holding Corporation**
 
 Exhibit
31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 
 
 I, Corey
Conn, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Imagin Molecular
Corporation;
 
 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 are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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
quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly 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 function):
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.
 
 Date:
August 22, 2005
 
 /s/Corey
Conn
 Chief
Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,800
<INVENTORY>                                      4,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,033
<PP&E>                                          68,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 581,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,471
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           353
<OTHER-SE>                                     437,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   438,348
<SALES>                                        107,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,107
<CGS>                                           28,605
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,520)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,168)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,688)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,688)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Case 3:16-cr-08002-SMM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:16-cr-08002-SMM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:16-cr-08002-SMM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3
#### Odell and Another *v.*Garnett.

Trespass against a justice and constable for an assault and batteTy, &e. The justice pleaded, that he had entered three fines against the plaintiff for “profanely swearing three several oaths by taking the name of God in vain,” and that the imprisonment, &c. The constable' pleaded that as constable under a mittimus in said case, &c., he did, &c. Held, that the description of the offences in the pleas was sufficient.

*Thursday, June*7.

APPEAL from the *Hendricks*Circuit Court.

*W. Quarles, C. Fletcher,*and *O. Butler,*for the appellants.

*H. Brown,*for the appellee.

Blackford, J.

An action of trespass for an assault and battery and false imprisonment, was brought by *Garnett*against *M’Millan*and *Odell.*The defendants pleaded the general issue; and they, also, each pleaded specially. *Odell*filed two special pleas, which are substantially the same. He states in those pleas, that he was a justice of the peace, and that as such justice he had entered three fines agáinst the plaintiff for profane swearing; and that the imprisonment was occasioned by the plaintiff’s refusal to pay. or replevy the fines. *M’Millan*justifies as a constable, under a mittimus issued by justice *Odell*in the case of the fines mentioned in *Odell’s*pleas. A general demurrer was sustained to the special plea's. The cause was then tried on the general issue, and the plaintiff obtained a judgment.

The justice states in his special pleas, that the fines against the plaintiff were for “ profanely swearing three several oaths by taking the name of God in vain.” The mittimus relied on by the constable, shows that it was issued in consequence of the fines for those offences.

There is no objection made to the special pleas in this case, except that they do not so describe the offences as to show, them to be finable under the statute. -We think this objection to the pleas is not sustainable, and that the demurrers should have been overruled. The statute prohibits profane swearing by or in the name of God, and the offences, in question are of that description. Rev. Code, 1831, p. 194.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed and the verdict set aside with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Moore, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03838-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Wagstaff & Cartmell 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 10/20/2017, 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: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties 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 8486 Filed 11/01/17 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 8486 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Antonio Juan Lopez, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-15-50187-PHX-SPL

CR-15-50188-PHX-SPL

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk or danger to any other person or to the community pursuant

to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

The Court also concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a

danger and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure

the safety of the community.

Case 2:15-cr-50187-SPL Document 11 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2016

Case 2:15-cr-50187-SPL Document 11 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 2
[Cite as Midgett v. Richland Cty. Sheriff , 2020-Ohio-3465.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DAJUAN MIDGETT : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Petitioner : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- : : RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF : Case No. 2020 CA 0045 : Respondent : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 22, 2020

APPEARANCES: For Petitioner For Respondent

DAJUAN MIDGETT - #57301 JOSEPH C. SNYDER 13 East 2nd Street 38 South Park Street Mansfield, OH 44902 2 nd Floor Mansfield, OH 44902Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0045 2

Wise, Earle, J. {¶ 1} On May 26, 2020, Petitioner, DaJuan Midgett, refiled a Pe tition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Respondent, Richland County Sheriff. The Richland County Prosecutor filed a Motion to Dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). On May 14, 2020, we previously dismissed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mr. Midgett. See DaJuan Midgett v. Richland County Sheriff , 5th Dist. No. 20CA41, 2020-Ohio-2966. Due to the following deficiencies, we grant the prosecutor’s Motion to Dismiss. {¶ 2} First, the petition is not verified as required by R.C. 2 725.04. The failure to verify the petition requires dismissal. State v. Vore , 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763 (2001); State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , 82 Ohio St.3d 270, 272, 695 N.E.2d 254 (1998). Second, Mr. Midgett did not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), which requires a copy of the commitment or cause of detention be atta ched to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Without the commitment papers, the writ of habeas corpus is fatally

defective. Brown v. Rogers , 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341, 650 N.E.2d 422 (1995). {¶ 3} For the foregoing reasons, we grant the Motion to Dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. {¶ 4} MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED.Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0045 3

{¶ 5} PETITION DISMISSED. {¶ 6} COSTS TO PETITIONER. {¶ 7} IT IS SO ORDERED.

By Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. Hoffman, P.J. and Wise, John, J. concur.

EEW/amc
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Claudio Lucas-Hernandez, 

Defendant. 

NO. CR-16-00025-001-TUC-GMS

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING 

DISPOSITION (PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. § 3143) 

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3143, a detention hearing was 

submitted on 5/15/2018. Defendant was present and was represented by counsel. The 

defendant has not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee if 

released. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

I find by a preponderance of the evidence that: 

☒ The defendant is not a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence. 

☒ The defendant, at the time of the charged offense, was in the United States 

illegally. 

☒ The defendant has a prior criminal history. 

☒ The defendant has been ordered detained on the underlying 8 USC 1326(a)&(b)(1) 

charged in Case No: 18-1319MJ. 

The Court incorporates by reference the material findings of the Pretrial Services Agency 

which were reviewed by the Court at the time of the hearing in this matter, except as 

noted in the record. 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. There is a serious risk that the defendant will flee. 

2. No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance 

of the defendant as required. 

DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTION 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his/her designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court 

proceeding. 

APPEALS AND THIRD PARTY RELEASE 

 IT IS ORDERED that should an appeal of this detention order be filed with the 

District Court, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion for 

review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing set before 

the District Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

before the District Court to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and 

investigate the potential third party custodian. 

DATE: 5/15/2018
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Demanding Gemini XI Mission Flies on Top of the World","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9JSfMxhB0W\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/gemini\/gemini-xi\/demanding-gemini-xi-mission-flies-on-top-of-the-world\/\">Demanding Gemini XI Mission Flies on Top of the World<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/gemini\/gemini-xi\/demanding-gemini-xi-mission-flies-on-top-of-the-world\/embed\/#?secret=9JSfMxhB0W\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Demanding Gemini XI Mission Flies on Top of the World” — NASA\" data-secret=\"9JSfMxhB0W\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S66-50772\/S66-50772~large.jpg?w=600&h=1920&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1920}
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-W-0036, styled State of Texas v. Rudy Apolinar, in the 144th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00804-CR

IN RE Rudy APOLINAR

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 12, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On October 30, 2008, relator Rudy Apolinar filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking

to compel the District Clerk of Bexar County to provide him with a copy of the record from his

criminal conviction for use in pursuing post-conviction remedies. This court has no mandamus

jurisdiction over a district clerk unless the issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our

jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)-(b) (Vernon 2004); In re Coronado,

980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Because we have no

jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases, the district clerk’s alleged

refusal to provide relator with a copy of his records does not affect our jurisdiction. In re O’Brian,
04-08-00804-CR

-2-

No. 04-04-00453-CV, 2004 WL 1562148, *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 14, 2004, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d at 692; see also TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN.

art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2007). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Jean M. Nelson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Virbac Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying 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 disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: March 31, 2006 By:  /s/ Jean M. Nelson    Jean M. Nelson    Executive Vice President