alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,036
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                       983
<INVENTORY>                                        802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,942
<PP&E>                                           1,517
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,230
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     52,856
<COMMON>                                           348
<OTHER-SE>                                    (99,239)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,471
<SALES>                                         17,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,194
<CGS>                                           16,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,195
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,932)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,932)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Mitchel D. Ramos, Respondent, v Alicia Court Enterprises, Inc., et al., Defendants. County of Westchester, Nonparty Appellant.

Submitted April 13, 2009;

decided June 11, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that *883the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### David Murray et al., Respondents, v Stephen Hirsch et al., Appellants.

[871 NYS2d 673]

*702In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), entered January 16, 2008, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff David Murray (hereinafter the plaintiff) went to the defendant Stephen Hirsch (hereinafter the defendant), a urologist, in January 2004 complaining of darkened semen. The defendant advised the plaintiff that the darkening was caused by blood in his semen, a condition known as hematospermia. The defendant examined the plaintiffs prostate and found it normal. The plaintiffs prostate specific antigen (PSA) score was 1.87, a rise of .57 from the test conducted in 2001. The defendant told the plaintiff that the condition was benign and would clear up on its own. The plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. The plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against the defendants asserting, inter alia, that the defendant should have ordered a prostate sonogram and biopsy when he had first complained of hematospermia because his rising PSA scores, combined with the hematospermia, were indicative of an elevated risk of prostate cancer. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant doctor has the burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby *(see Shahid v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*47 AD3d 800 [2008]; *Rebozo v Wilen,*41 AD3d 457 [2007]; *Williams v Sahay,*12 AD3d 366 [2004]). The affirmation of the defendants’ expert was sufficient to establish that the defendant did not depart from good and accepted medical practice.

Once a defendant has made this prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish the existence of a tri*703able issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff must submit a physician’s affidavit attesting to the defendant’s departure from accepted practice, which departure was a competent producing cause of the injury *(see Rebozo v Wilen,*41 AD3d at 458; *Domaradzki v Glen Cove Ob/Gyn Assoc.,*242 AD2d 282 [1997]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs’ expert was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant departed from good and accepted medical practice. However, in his affirmation, the plaintiffs’ expert completely failed to address the issue of how the defendant’s departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries.

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Fisher, J.E, Miller, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, (the “Report”), I, Ramin (“Ron”) Najafi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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 Company.





Date: March 26, 2010





/s/  Ramin Najafi


Ramin (“Ron”) Najafi


Chief Executive Officer and President








This Certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 USC Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
Exhibit 31.3
------------

CERTIFICATION
-------------

 I, Elise Nissen, Chief Financial Officer of AFP Imaging Corporation, certify
that:

1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging
    Corporation;

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 officers 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 enable 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)  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

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers 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 controls over financial reporting.









Date: November 15, 2004                          ___________/s/______________
                                                        Elise Nissen
                                                    Chief Financial Officer


                                       15
**Exhibit 31.1**




**Certification**




I,
      Terry
      L. McCoy, in my capacity as Executive Vice President of First Horizon Asset
      Securities Inc (the Depositor) do hereby certify that:





1.    I
      have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
      be
      filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of First
      Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-AA1 (the “Exchange Act
      periodic reports”);





2.    Based
      on
      my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
      to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
      in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.  Based
      upon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report
      under Item 1123 of Regulation AB and except as disclosed in the Exchange
      Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under
      the
      servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5.    All
      of
      the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
      with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
      in
      this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange
      Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
      report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
      of
      noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
      on
      Form 10-K.





In
      giving
      the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
      to me
      by The Bank of New York.







**First
                Horizon Asset Securities Inc., as Depositor**By:
            /s/
                Terry L. McCoyTerry
                L. McCoy,Executive
                Vice President
              (Senior
                Officer of the Depositor in charge of
              Securitization)




Date:
      March 28, 2008
<PAGE>


                                 HOLLINGER INC.

                    ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION CONSIDERING
                           ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA, MARCH 11, 2005 - HOLLINGER INC. (TSX: HLG.C; HLG.PR.B)
announced today that it had received a notice from Staff of the Ontario
Securities Commission to the effect that they are contemplating commencing
administrative proceedings before the Commission to consider whether Hollinger
historically has engaged in conduct which warrants the Commission making an
order in the public interest. The alleged conduct of Hollinger does not relate
to the pending going private transaction scheduled to be considered by
shareholders on March 31, 2005.

The Staff has invited Hollinger to respond to the notice and to provide
information and reasons why Commission Staff should not commence these
proceedings. Hollinger, through its lawyers, intends to provide a response in
the near future setting out the reasons why proceedings against it would be
contrary to the public interest in this case.

Hollinger's principal asset is its interest in Hollinger International Inc.
which is a newspaper publisher, the assets of which include the Chicago
Sun-Times, a large number of community newspapers in the Chicago area and a
portfolio of news media investments. Hollinger also owns a portfolio of
revenue-producing and other commercial real estate in Canada, including its
head office building located at 10 Toronto Street, Toronto, Ontario.


For further information please contact:

Joseph Groia
Groia & Company LLPC
(416) 203-4472
jgroia@groiaco.com



                              www.hollingerinc.com
#### Lumpkin County *v.*Williams.

*A*judgment in favor of a county against one of its debtors for a specific sum of money may be enforced by execution, notwithstanding an agreement by counsel; which was incorporated in the judgment, stipulating that the judgment should in no wise be in the way of a certain claim for extra compensation which the defendant then had pending before the grand jury of the county. This stipulation could not be construed as entitling; or as intended to entitle, the defendant to any deduction or delay of payment by reason of said claim either before or after'its allowance by the grand jury, since the statute (Code, 23697) requires the imposition of a tax to pay claims for extra compensation, and does not render them a charge upon the general funds of the county. *Judgment reversed.*

July 30, 1894.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Wellborn. LumpTrin superior court. October term, 1898.

On the petitiou of Williams, the court granted an ■order restraining the sheriff' from further proceeding to enforce an execution against Williams, until the next derm of the superior court and until Williams had an •opportunity to present his claim to the grand jury at that term. His petition alleged, that in the superior -court a judgment had been rendered against him for about $360, upon a suit by the county against him as •ordinary thereof, for alleged overcharges against the •county; and as a part of the judgment it was agreed in writing between the attorneys for the county and petitioner, that the judgment was not to be in the way of his claim for extra compensation then pending before the.grand jury. He has a valid, subsisting and *bona fide*•claim which is a legal charge against the county for extra services, for more than enough to pay off' the judgment. When he permitted the judgment to be entered, he believed the grand jury would pass on his claim, and .allow him at least enough to balance the judgment agreed on; but before the judgment was signed, the grand jury refused to consider his claim, the foreman *658arbitrarily refusing to give him or bis counsel a bearing before tbe jury, wlio in their general presentments simply reported against bis claim on tbe ground that it was barred. He cannot present bis claim before another grand jury until tbe April term, 1894. It would be inequitable and unjust to require him to pay tbe judgment, when tbe county is indebted to him in a larger sum, and in view of tbe agreement that he should be heard before the grand jury.

Perry & Dean, M. L. Smith, H. Thompson and G. K. Looper, for plaintiff in error.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, Epilepsy CWOW Review.                    

*Date:*                         March 3-4, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Marriott Downtown Convention Center Hotel, 859 Convention Center Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70130.                    

*Contact Person:*                         William C. Benzing, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-0660,                         *benzingw@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: January 13, 2015.

Carolyn Baum, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00672 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
** **

Exhibit 35.1 

[ U.S. Bank National Association Letterhead]** **

** **

**Annual Statement of Compliance**

SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1

 

VIA: EMAIL

 

MS Structured Asset Corp.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

 

Reference is made to theTrust Agreement (the “Agreement”), between MS Structured Asset Corp., as Depositor and U.S. Bank National Association,as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, as successor by merger to LaSalle BankNational Association, as Trustee, for SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1, dated March 1, 2007, together with Schedules I, II and III attachedthereto, and the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements, between MS Structured Asset Corp., as Depositor and U.S. Bank National Association,as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, as successor by merger to LaSalle BankNational Association, as Trustee dated April 13*,* 2006. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the meaningsdefined in the Trust Agreement and the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements.

 

I, Nancie J Arvin, a Senior Vice Presidentof U.S. Bank National Association as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as successor by merger toLaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Trustee under theAgreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2.     To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Trustee has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year.

 

 

Capitalized terms used but not defined hereinhave the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

 

 

 

 

Date: 3/13/2015

 

U.S. Bank National Association as successor-in-interestto Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee

 

 

 

/s/ Nancie J Arvin_____________

Nancie J Arvin

Senior Vice President
Dismissed and Opinion Filed August 22, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00337-CV

ONA MARIE HENDRIX, Appellant

V.

AAC FUNDING III, LLC DBC THIRTY 377, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-00821-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel

On June 9, 2023, we sent a letter to the parties questioning our jurisdiction 

and requested jurisdictional briefing by June 30, 2023. In our letter, we warned 

appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice should 

appellant fail to file the requested letter brief. To date, appellant has not filed the 

requested letter brief. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)(c).

230337f.p05 /Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ONA MARIE HENDRIX, Appellant

No. 05-23-00337-CV V.

AAC FUNDING III, LLC DBC 

THIRTY 377, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-00821-

A.

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of August, 2023.