alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Candela Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerard E. Puorro, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | May 13, 2003 |                                   | /s/ Gerard  E. Puorro |   |
|--------|--------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|   |         | Gerard E.  Puorro                      |
|   |         | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CandelaCorporation and will be retained by Candela Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
§ 1203.10 Contents of the application for award. ( a ) An application for award of fees and other expenses under either § 1203.4(a) and § 1203.4(b) must: ( 1 ) Identify the applicant and the adversary adjudication for which an award is sought;
( 2 ) State the amount of fees and other expenses for which an award is sought;
( 3 ) Provide the statements and documentation required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this section and § 1203.12 and any additional information required by the adjudicative officer; and
( 4 ) Be signed by the applicant or an authorized officer or attorney of the applicant and contain or be accompanied by a written verification under oath or under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the application is true and correct.
( b ) An application for award under § 1203.4(a) must show that the demand of FHFA was substantially in excess of, and was unreasonable when compared to, the decision in the underlying adversary adjudication under the facts and circumstances of the case. It must also show that the applicant is a small entity as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601.
( c ) An application for award under § 1203.4(b) must: ( 1 ) Show that the applicant has prevailed in a significant and discrete substantive portion of the underlying adversary adjudication and identify the position of FHFA in the adversary adjudication that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified;
( 2 ) State the number of employees of the applicant and describe briefly the type and purposes of its organization or business (if the applicant is not an individual);
( 3 ) State that the net worth of the applicant does not exceed $2 million, if the applicant is an individual; or for all other applicants, state that the net worth of the applicant and its affiliates, if any, does not exceed $7 million; and
( 4 ) Include one of the following: ( i ) A detailed exhibit showing the net worth (net worth exhibit) of the applicant and its affiliates, if any, when the underlying adversary adjudication was initiated. The net worth exhibit may be in any form convenient to the applicant as long as the net worth exhibit provides full disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the applicant and its affiliates, if any, and is sufficient to determine whether the applicant qualifies as an eligible party;
( ii ) A copy of a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that shows that the applicant qualifies as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3); or in the case of a tax-exempt organization not required to obtain a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service on its exempt status, a statement that describes the basis for the belief that the applicant qualifies under such section; or
( iii ) A statement that the applicant is a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1141j(a).
(a)  A review of Exeter Finance LLC’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 30, 2021 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Exeter Holdings Trust 2021-2, EFCAR, LLC,
          Exeter Finance LLC, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2021-2, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as indenture trustee and backup servicer, during the year ended December 31, 2022 has been
          made under my supervision.
 
 (b)  To the best of my knowledge,
        based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
 
   By:  /s/ Ben Miller
#### James JOHNSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 75-182

532 S.W. 2d 1

Opinion delivered February 2, 1976

*John W. Achor,*Public Defender, for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Robert A. Newcomb,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellant was convicted by the court, sitting as a jury, of armed robbery and sentenced to 21 years pursuant to the provisions of the Habitual Criminal Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2328 (Rep!. 1964). An additional two year sentence for the use of a firearm was also imposed. Appellant’s sole contention for reversal is that the prosecuting attorney improperly presented evidence that *221appellant had a gun in his possession when he was arrested. Appellant relies on *Botany*v. *State,*258 Ark. 866, 529 S.W. 2d 149 (1975). There we said “that [the] weapon had nothing to do with the offense oq trial.” In the case at bar, however, the victim identified the appellant and testified that appellant used a .22 pistol during the robbery. One of the arresting officers testified that when he arrested the appellant he had a .22 pistol in his possession. We cannot say, in view of this evidence, that the weapon had nothing to do with the offense of robbery. Therefore, *Botany*is not controlling.

Furthermore, appellant did not object to the testimony that he had a gun in his possession when arrested. In the absence of an objection we are precluded from considering appellant’s contention for the first time on appeal. *Ford*v. *State,*253 Ark. 5, 484 S.W. 2d 90 (1972); and *Williams*v. *State,*257 Ark. 8, 513 S.W. 2d 793 (1974).

Affirmed.
§ 1003.1 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* This part, known as Regulation C, is issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) (12 U.S.C. 2801 *et seq.,*) as amended. The information-collection requirements have been approved by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and have been assigned OMB numbers for institutions reporting data to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (1557-0159), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (3064-0046), the Federal Reserve System (7100-0247), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (2502-0529), the National Credit Union Administration (3133-0166), and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (3170-0008).
( b ) *Purpose.* ( 1 ) This part implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which is intended to provide the public with loan data that can be used: ( i ) To help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities;
( ii ) To assist public officials in distributing public-sector investment so as to attract private investment to areas where it is needed; and
( iii ) To assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.
( 2 ) Neither the act nor this part is intended to encourage unsound lending practices or the allocation of credit.
( c ) *Scope.* This part applies to financial institutions as defined in § 1003.2(g). This part requires a financial institution to submit data to the appropriate Federal agency for the financial institution as defined in § 1003.5(a)(4), and to disclose certain data to the public, about covered loans for which the financial institution receives applications, or that it originates or purchases, and that are secured by a dwelling located in a State of the United States of America, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
[76 FR 78468, Dec. 19, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 66308, Oct. 28, 2015]
# Amtsblatt C 284A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2407
  doi:10.3000/17252407.CA2011.284.ger |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 284A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 54. Jahrgang28. September 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2407

doi:10.3000/17252407.CA2011.284.ger

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 284A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

54. Jahrgang28. September 2011

---

| Informationsnummer | Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Bekanntmachungen |
| | VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN |
| | Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO) |
| 2011/C 284A/01 | Reserveliste — Allgemeines Auswahlverfahren — EPSO/AD/193/10 — Rechts- und Sprachsachverständige (AD 7) für die deutsche Sprache (DE) | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Inhalt

Seite

V   Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO)

2011/C 284A/01

Reserveliste — Allgemeines Auswahlverfahren — EPSO/AD/193/10 — Rechts- und Sprachsachverständige (AD 7) für die deutsche Sprache (DE)

1

---

ÜBERSICHT DER IM C A-AMTSBLATT VERÖFFENTLICHTEN AUSWAHLVERFAHREN

Anbei finden Sie eine Liste der „C A“-Amtsblätter, die im Jahr 2011 bisher veröffentlicht wurden.

Die Amtsblätter sind — wenn nicht anders angegeben — in allen Sprachfassungen erschienen.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |
| 76 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 82 | |
| 91 | |
| 98 | |
| 114 | (DA) |
| 121 | (DA) |
| 122 | |
| 135 | |
| 140 | (BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV) |
| 142 | |
| 146 | |
| 147 | (EN/IT/MT/SV) |
| 155 | (EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 162 | |
| 169 | (EN) |
| 177 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (BG/RO) |
| 181 | (DA) |
| 183 | (SL) |
| 185 | |
| 193 | (BG/RO) |
| 198 | (CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK) |
| 206 | (CS/ES/LV/MT/SV) |
| 208 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 221 | |
| 222 | (BG/RO) |
| 223 | |
| 229 | |
| 257 | |
| 258 | |
| 270 | |
| 271 | |
| 278 | (EN) |
| 279 | (FR) |
| 281 | (DA) |
| 284 | (DE) |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

76

(DE/EN/FR)

82

91

98

114

(DA)

121

(DA)

122

135

140

(BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV)

142

146

147

(EN/IT/MT/SV)

155

(EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

156

157

162

169

(EN)

177

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(BG/RO)

181

(DA)

183

(SL)

185

193

(BG/RO)

198

(CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK)

206

(CS/ES/LV/MT/SV)

208

(DE/EN/FR)

221

222

(BG/RO)

223

229

257

258

270

271

278

(EN)

279

(FR)

281

(DA)

284

(DE)

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE
§ 1030.9 Enforcement and record retention. ( a ) *Administrative enforcement.* Section 270 of the act (12 U.S.C. 4309) contains the provisions relating to administrative sanctions for failure to comply with the requirements of the act and this part. Compliance is enforced by the agencies listed in that section.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Record retention.* A depository institution shall retain evidence of compliance with this part for a minimum of two years after the date disclosures are required to be made or action is required to be taken. The administrative agencies responsible for enforcing this part may require depository institutions under their jurisdiction to retain records for a longer period if necessary to carry out their enforcement responsibilities under section 270 of the act.
Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
Electronic Retailing Systems International, Inc.
Computation of Net Loss Per Common Share

<CAPTION>

                                						    Three Months		 Twelve Months
                             						          Ended		        Ended
                              						  December 31, 1999	December 31, 1999
                        						 ------------------------	-----------------------
<S>						                      <C>			                   <C>
Net income (loss)					         $  23,465,000		          ($2,111,000)
                        						    ==========		            =========
Weighted average common
 shares outstanding	              21,282,637		           21,264,025
                        						    ==========		            =========
Basic earnings (loss) per
 common shares		                       $1.10		               ($0.10)
                        						    ==========	       	     =========

Calculation of weighted average shares outstanding

Shares issued and outstanding at
 December 31, 1998	               21,249,447		           21,249,447

Issuance of shares pursuant to
 stock option plan	                   33,190		               14,578
                    						    ---------------		    ----------------
Weighted average common
 shares outstanding	              21,282,637		           21,264,025
                        						    =========	        	    =========

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4517 Incorporation by reference.

The regulations concerning direct loans to veterans in effect on the date a loan is closed shall govern the rights, duties, and liabilities of the parties to such loan during the period the Department of Veterans Affairs is the holder thereof, and any provisions of the loan instruments inconsistent with such regulations are hereby amended and supplemented to conform thereto.

[15 FR 6290, Sept. 20, 1950]
Exhibit 12.4



CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14(A) AND 15D-14(A) AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dana Gerner, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual
report on Form 20-F of Cellebrite DI Ltd.;



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.



Date: April 18, 2022





|/s/ Dana Gerner |                                                                                      
|--------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:           | Dana Gerner                                                                          
|Title:          | Chief Financial Officer
                                (Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 62.37 Fee prohibition.

Grantees must not charge a fee to very low-income veteran families for providing supportive services that are funded with amounts from a supportive services grant.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2044)
#### MARR v. THE UNITED STATES

[58 C. Cls. 658; 268 U. S. 536]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding;

A Delaware corporation, organized for the purpose, took over the assets and continued the business of a New Jersey corporation, assuming its liabilities, after an exchange of stock, as follows: The New Jersey corporation had outstanding $15,000,000 of 7 per cent preferred and $15,000,000 common stock, all shares of the par value of $100, and had accumulated a large surplus from profits, the actual value of the common stock being $842.50 per share; the Delaware corporation had an authorized capital of $20,000,000 in 6 per cent nonvoting preferred stock and $82,600,000 in common shares, all of the par value of $100, and exchanged five shares of its common stock for every like share in the New Jersey corporation, and one and one-third shares of its preferred stock for every like share in the New Jersey corporation, making payments in cash to avoid fractional certificates; and thus all the stock of the New Jersey corporation was exchanged, except a few shares of preferred stock redeemed in cash, and the Delaware corporation had $7,600,000 of authorized common stock remaining which was sold or held for sale for additional capitál. *Held*that the new securities thus received by an old stockholder were not in effect a stock dividend; and that their value above the cost of *1032Ms exchanged securities, bought by him prior to March 1, 1913, was taxable as income under the act of September 8th, 1916, and within the power of Congress so to tax, since the corporations were essentially different, being organized in different States and with different rights and powers, and since the shares exchanged represented different interests both because of these differences in the corporations and because a 6 per cent nonvoting preferred stock differs essentially from a 7 per cent voting preferred stock, and common stock subject to the priority of $20,000,000 preferred and a $1,200,000 annual dividend charge differs essentially from a common stock subject only to $15,000,000 preferred and a $1,050,000 annual dividend charge. *Msner*v. *Maconiber,*252 U. S. 159, and *Weiss*v. *Steam,*265 U. S. 242, distinguished.

June 1, 1925.

Mr. Justice BeaNdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                      10,765
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 31,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            81,364
<PP&E>                                       2,800
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             177,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      443,372
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   499,951
<OTHER-SE>                                (794,158)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               177,164
<SALES>                                      2,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,700
<CGS>                                          800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (9,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (9,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.001)



</TABLE>
#### § 1209.71 Definitions.

*Practice before FHFA* for the purposes of subpart D of this part, includes, but is not limited to, transacting any business with FHFA as counsel of record, representative, or agent for any other person, unless the Director orders otherwise. Practice before FHFA also includes the preparation of any statement, opinion, or other paper by a counsel, representative or agent that is filed with FHFA in any certification, notification, application, report, or other document, with the consent of such counsel, representative, or agent. Practice before FHFA does not include work prepared for a regulated entity or entity-affiliated party solely at the request of such party for use in the ordinary course of its business.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****C�mo pagar los estudiossuperiores [electronic resource] : gu�a de programas federales de ayudaestudiantil /**
 
SuDoc Number:ED 1.45/7:

Item Number:0461-B-19 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000869897
 
2010-11| 2011-12
 
April 3, 2020
42346.

#### PRICE v. THE STATE.

Submitted October 3, 1966

Decided November 8, 1966.

*Nat O. Carter,*for appellant.

*Walter C. McMillan, Jr., Solicitor General,*for appellee.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence of five years upon an indictment for assault with intent to murder “with a certain pistol and blunt instrument . . . being a weapon likely to produce death.” The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant hit the victim on the head with a pistol inflicting a severe wound, and to support a finding that the defendant acted with the intent to kill. *Turner v. State,*57 Ga. 107; *Kennedy v. State,*68 Ga. App. 852, 856 (24 SE2d 321); *Benford v. State,*73 Ga. App. 426 (36 SE2d 833); *Thomas v. State,*75 Ga. App. 334 (43 SE2d 352); *Tanner v. State,*86 Ga. App. 767 (72 SE2d 549); *Finch v. State,*98 Ga. App. 480 (106 SE2d 86).

On this trial there was no evidence of mutual combat between the defendant and the victim. The defendant enumerates as error that the court in instructing the jury on the law embodied in *Code*§§ 26-1011 and 26-1012 (justifiable homicide) intermingled certain provisions of *Code*§ 26-1014. It has been held error to charge *Code*§ 26-1014 when mutual combat is not involved *(Dye v. State,*218 Ga. 330, 332 (127 SE2d 674); *Price v. State,*108 Ga. App. 581, 586 (133 SE2d 916)), as well as to commingle in instructions to the jury the law embodied in *Code*§§ 26-1011, 26-1012 and 26-1014; *McKibben v. State,*88 Ga. App. 466, 472 (77 SE2d 86). For this reason the judgment must be reversed.

Since the case will be retried under the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 as amended (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, as amended Ga. L. 1966, pp. 493, 498), it is not necessary that we pass on the other enumerations of error on instructions and omissions of instructions to the jury.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*