alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014350EN.01000401.xml

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

3 October 2014

(2014/C 350/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2616 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4441 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78525 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1122 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2089 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1785 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,479 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,17 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1789 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4108 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8755 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4415 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4108 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7900 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6054 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6090 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 338,63 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2021 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7445 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6390 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 388,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1201 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,609 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 50,1813 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,028 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1441 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9048 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,9877 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2616

JPY

Japanese yen

137,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4441

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78525

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1122

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2089

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1785

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,479

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,17

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1789

RON

Romanian leu

4,4108

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8755

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4415

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4108

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7900

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6054

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6090

KRW

South Korean won

1 338,63

ZAR

South African rand

14,2021

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7445

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6390

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 388,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1201

PHP

Philippine peso

56,609

RUB

Russian rouble

50,1813

THB

Thai baht

41,028

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1441

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9048

INR

Indian rupee

77,9877

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2014198EN.01003801.xml

| 27.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/38

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.7288 — Viacom / Channel 5 Broadcasting)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 198/06)

(Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004)

On 10 June 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between Viacom and Channel 5 Broadcasting. On 20 June 2014, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOHN WASH,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-612

ROBERT L. FERDINAND, JR., SAMUEL

HINES, LOOKING GOOD MANAGEMENT, 

INC. AND CRYSTAL SHARON,

Appellees.

__________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County,

Melanie Chase, Judge.

Jennifer R. Dixon, Terry C. Young, and 

James S. Toscano, of Lowndes, Drosdick, 

Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Orlando, for 

Appellant.

Scott D. Clark, Mitchell E. Albaugh, and 

Christopher M. Hamilton, of Clark & 

Albaugh, LLP, Winter Park, for Appellee 

Robert L. Ferdinand, Jr.

No appearance for other Appellees. 

EDWARDS, J.

After careful consideration, we affirm the trial court’s rulings on all but one issue 

raised on appeal. Because the trial court erred by failing to apportion the award of 
2

attorney's fees between John Wash (“Appellant”) and his counsel, we remand the case 

to the trial court for entry of an amended order apportioning the fees between Appellant 

and his counsel as required by section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2014).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.
# C_2016077EN.01000102.xml

| 27.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7748 — Magna/Getrag)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 77/02)

On 17 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7748. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7748. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40329

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICHARD MIGUEL SANTO-HERRERA, also known as Ramon Terrero, also 

known as Richard Miguel Santos-Herrera,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1404-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Richard Miguel 

Santo-Herrera has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Santo-Herrera has filed a response. 

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40329 Document: 00513765362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2016
No. 16-40329

2

Santo-Herrera’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline 

to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Santo-Herrera’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40329 Document: 00513765362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2016
# C_2016078EN.01000101.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 078/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 68, 22.2.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016

OJ C 48, 8.2.2016

OJ C 38, 1.2.2016

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016

OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

OJ C 7, 11.1.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6874

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRAHEEN TIMOTHY EARL WHITFIELD, a/k/a Braheem, a/k/a Anthony 

Braswell,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-01216-RBH-2; 4:16-cv-02000-RBH)

Submitted: November 21, 2019 Decided: November 26, 2019

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Braheen Timothy Earl Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Braheen Whitfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whitfield has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Whitfield’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability, deny Whitfield’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001021810
<NAME>                        InteliData Technologies Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1 
<CASH>                             8,050
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                      2,705
<ALLOWANCES>                        (592)
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  10,306
<PP&E>                             3,361
<DEPRECIATION>                    (3,013)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    10,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             10,580
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                              32
<OTHER-SE>                           299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      10,911
<SALES>                              812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  10,027
<CGS>                                109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      2,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  11,861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      21
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (3,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (3,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                   (34,223)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                     (37,839)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (1.20)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASIDNGTON, DC 

Michael Pelzer and 

Pegasus Parachuting Services 

Complainant, 

RECEIVED 

MAR 21 2017 

PART 16 DOCK:fi!Tfl 

FAA Docket No. 16-16-05 

v. 

The State of Michigan 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the 

above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for 

Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR part 16 (Rules of 

Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, Section 16.ll(a), the date by which the 

Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to 

May 19,2017. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete 

determination in this case. 

Kevin 

Directo , Office of Airport Compliance 

and anagement Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 17, 2017, I FedX a true copy of the Notice of 

Extension of Time to May 19,2017, for FAA Docket 16-16-05 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainants 

Richard J. Durden 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, CO 80433 

Respondent 

Mike Trout 

Executive Administrator, Office of Aeronautics 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

2700 Port Lansing Road 

Lansing, MI 48906 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance Division (A CO-l 00) 

FAA Regional AGL 

) l __ ~ '-...J"'Y'''IW'""''ul:lerts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
#### Baker vs. Beach.

May 15.

Where one enters into a written contract to sell and convey land to another upon the payment of certain sums, he is entitled, after a default in any snch payment, to a judgment foreclosing the rights of the vendee under the contract, unless the amount due is paid by a day fixed by the court; but not to a judgment directing a *sale*of the land to make the amount due, and requiring the vendee to pay any *deficiency.*

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Waushara*County.

In November, 1858, *Baker*entered into a written contract with *Beach,*by which the latter agreed to pay him for certain land in Waushara county, $200 in two equal payments, June 1st, 1860, and June 1st, 1861, with interest, &c.; and after such payments *Baker*was to give *Beach*a deed of the land. On default by *Beach*in the payment of part of the first in-stalment, this suit was brought to foreclose his equities, and obtain a sale of the lots to pay the amount due on the contract, and a personal judgment against *Beach*for any deficiency. Judgment was entered in accordance with the plaintiff’s demand.

*W. 0. Webb*and *H. J.*Curtice, for appellant,

cited *Button vs. Schroyer, 5*Wis., 598.

*Truesdell & Boot,*for respondent.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

In *Button vs. Schroyer,*5 Wis., 598, this court held that in actions of this character, the judgment, instead of being for a sale of the property, should be, that unless the money due was paid in a specified time, the defendants should be barred of all equity of redemption.

This makes it necessary to reverse this judgment, and remand the cause with directions to enter judgment in accordance with that decision.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded accordingly.
Exhibit 10.9


 





 


September 14, 2021


 


Andrew C. Stranberg


Stran & Company Inc.


2 Heritage Drive, 6th Floor


Quincy, Massachusetts 02171


 


Re: Revolving Line of Credit provided by Bank of America,
N.A. (the “Bank”) to Stran & Company Inc., loan number ending in 10040887 (the “Credit Facility”).


 


Dear Andrew C. Stranberg,


 


Effective as of the current expiration date of August 31,
2021, the Bank has extended the Credit Facility described above. The availability period of the Credit Facility will now end on November
30, 2021, on which date all outstanding principal and accrued interest will be due and payable, unless renewed hereafter.


 


The current commitment amount of the Credit Facility is $3,500,000.00.


 


This letter shall not constitute a commitment to extend
the Credit Facility beyond the date specified above. All other terms and conditions of the loan documents evidencing the Credit Facility
(the “Loan Documents”) shall remain in full force and effect during the extended availability period, including, without limitation,
the obligation to make payments as stated in the Loan Documents.


 


Notice Regarding LIBOR Rate. Effective as of February
1, 2014, the ICE Benchmark Administration (“ICE”) took over administration of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”)
from the British Bankers Association (“BBA”). As a result, on that date, Bank of America began using the LIBOR established
by ICE as reported on Bloomberg.


 


Except as set forth above, nothing in this letter shall
constitute a waiver or amendment of any of the terms and conditions of the Loan Documents.


 


Thank you for your business. We look forward to our continued
relationship and the opportunity to provide exceptional customer service and expertise.


 


Please feel free to call me at 617-434-9984 if you have any
questions.


 


Bank of America, N.A.


 


Janeal Ramsey


Vice President


 


Combined Extension and ORC Renewal Letter
http://www.noticeandcomment.com /Canvas - Air - Inc - Exemption - Rulemaking - fn 306623.asp x

As of 23J AN16Date submitte d to FAA: 16JUL15 120 working da ys: Tu esda y, January 12, 2016 To da y (23J AN16): 127 working da ys St atus: ????? St ate R epr esent atives POCs: Senator Thom Tiillis : Wa shington, D .C . Office 185 Dirksen Senat e Office Building Wa shington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224 - 6342 Congr esswoman R enee Ellmers : Wa shington , D .C . Office 1210 Longworth HOB W ashington, DC 20515 Phone : (202) 225 - 4531
LARAMIE ENERGY II, LLC 

1512 LARIMER STREET, SUITE 1000 

DENVER, CO 80202 

TEL: (303) 339-4400 

FAX: (303) 339-4399 

October 1 1, 201 J 

Carissa Erickson 

Toxic Substances Control Act Document Control Officer ­

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Hydraulic Fracturing Information Request 

Care of: 

Eastern Research Group 

14555 A vion Parkway, Suite 200 

Chantilly, VA 20151 

Dear Carissa, 

On the enclosed thumb drive, you will find data on the wells you asked about. Some of the files are 

organized a little differently, depending on what was available, but most of it should be self explanatory. 

All of this data should be considered confidential. Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Chase Boswell 

chaseboswell@laramie-energy.com 

303.339.4665 

~ 0 I I 10/R 00(
# C_2015413EN.01000302.xml

| 12.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7747 — PGA/MSA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 413/03)

On 16 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7747. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7747. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
-

.... tu'~ the eecurit,y ot camr.r IW' ~ the 

mnber or pe ecna who 1llndle m terl.&l. Sn tlJo h1.ctr 

-'-~· "). Brplcrro ~ palaib1.l.1~ at ~ ~ Jll"(duO-. 

Um ~ camn tw" reJe:d~ to 11ano c:tmt, 1he 

elaramco stendru:Us tr:. )Wfl"&TM1 vho Jwmdlo 

mtar:tal s.n the 1rutt a~ors.es. 

... tt poe&ihle, vitbout ~ aecurl!f;~ tb8 w»f'u1neea at pla1n text C<JCIIT \v ... latitado 1n 1ta 41a98rl!ne.'tlczl. 

"j. •~ the moesa!.\r ror tbe adopUcm or~ 

tlaim tuo or tb1"oe en~. 

"•· To 1nsure t.he Jl&"'OPGl~ eateaor1mt1m at 1Dd1vl4ur.J. 

•rneeces. an4 to .,.,rdzo u.. loM or valuable J.n.,. 

~. c!itv:.::..:_r:s.ble, a 8'tandard t-lplata to be 11.G&d lr cbG.riOO vit.b the roapaneiMli'1' ext ~ Camlf •tarial. into ee.~. 

•t... Dotc.rm1rle tbD .t•a1hl1!1'v at e4opt1ng 118'11 prindpl.- t.o 1ncroc.so the ..curi'fV or ca.mrr." 

-TIJP SECRET SUEDE 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-22-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352a----
----- REF ID:A55385 

SECRETllEIRM 

Operation ot !CA lqutpent tor Xn.wrcept 

ltation1 

.A.'f'SA..()4 14 Sept 51 

tla'ri4 G. !cak/8"/l 

l•terencot J.PSA-<>OA lllm.o dated lf, lept &l, •ub,;f. • 8ec1.1rlty ot .A.FSA COl!Illi' 

Com.""!Unioa t1omt. 

A propa•ed 1ndie•tor •19tera tor ASAlf 1•11 APOLLO operation. Xnolo•ure1 l and 

I, 1• tonr:irded tor your lnto:rration. 'l'be propo•e4 1y1te111 Me been tonrarde4 to 

.APSA .. 02 tor COJri?:?ent u 1.n4ioated ln paragraph lo af.' the reterenoe. 

Izioloaure• • I 

1 - Pr-opoae4 Xn41oator S:yatca tor 

.ASAM' 1 ... 11 APOLIJ> Operation 

I - Sample pad 

SEBRH 

R.C. SEARS 

Colonel, USAF 

Acting Chief. Office of 

Communication Securltf 

.. 

.~ 

~ ..- 

.. 

,,. 

. 

'!: 

..... 

-I
----

----

|   | I, Gili Shalita, certify that: |
|--------|--------------------------------|

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Top Image Systems Ltd. (the “Registrant”); |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Gili Shalita                    |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Gili ShalitaChief Financial Officer |   |

----

----