alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14a or 15d-14a**

I, Gideon Mantel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20–F of Commtouch Software Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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 Company’s other certifying officer 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 Company and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, 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 Company’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 report; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 27, 2006

| /s/Gideon Mantel |
|------------------|

| ———————————                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  
Gideon Mantel

 
 
Chief Executive Officer

 
 

 

 

 

  |
Olufemi ADEMOYE, DOC #T84626, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-2232

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Rhonda MEISNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZYMOGENETICS, INC., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb, Inc.; Zymogenetics, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Zymogenetics, Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb, Inc.; Tracey Caldarazzo; Jeff Fortino; Stephanie Lewis, individually and as a member of Jackson Lewis, PC, Greenville; Jackson Lewis, LLP, Greenville; Jackson Lewis PC; John Does and Jane Does 1-10, (Whose name is unknown or as yet discovered), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2443

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 7, 2017

Decided: September 20, 2017

Rhonda Meisner, Appellant Pro Se. Ellison F. McCoy, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*219PER CURIAM:

Rhonda Meisner appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying her motion to remand, denying her motion to recuse and for reconsideration, accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying her motion to alter or amend the judgment, and taxing costs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Meis-ner’s motion to file a corrected informal opening brief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Meisner v. ZymoGenetics, Inc.,*No. 3:15-cv-03523-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2016; June 1, 2016; July 27, 2016; Sept. 15, 2016 & Nov. 28, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Consent of Colin Hardie
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada” effective date January 16, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “Colin Hardie”Name:
Colin HardieTitle:
Metallurgist
Amendment to Non-Employee Director Stock Option Award Agmt



 Exhibit 10.11.6 
 TRAILER BRIDGE, INC. 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR 
 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment
to the Trailer Bridge, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Incentive Plan (“Plan”) has been adopted by the Board of Directors of Trailer Bridge, Inc. in order to conform the Plan to the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 The Plan is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2009, as follows: 
 1. The definition of the term “Fair Market Value” is amended in its entirety to provide as follows: 
 “Fair Market Value” means, with respect to a Share, for purposes of determining the minimum exercise price of an Option on the Grant Date or
otherwise, (i) if the Shares are readily tradable on an established securities market, the arithmetic mean of the closing prices of a Share on such market on the ten business days immediately prior to the Grant Date or other measurement date or
(ii) if the Shares are not readily tradable on an established securities market, the value determined by the Committee as of the Grant Date or other measurement date through the reasonable application of a reasonable valuation method and
otherwise in accordance with Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(b)(5)(iv)(B).” 
 2. Section 4.3 of the Plan is amended by the addition of
the following sentence at the end thereof. 
 “In no event shall the Committee adjust the terms of the Option in a manner that could
cause the Option to be treated as a grant of a new Option for purposes of Section 409A of the Code and Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(b)(5)(v).” 
 3. New Section 5.3 is added to the Plan to provide as follows: 
 “ 5.3 Option Term. In no
event shall the term of an Option as established by the Committee at the time of grant be extended or the Option otherwise be exercisable beyond the expiration date of the Option set forth in the Award Agreement.” 
 4. Section 7.1 of the Plan is amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof. 







 “The Committee may amend any Option Agreement to the extent the Committee determines that such
amendment is necessary or appropriate in order to bring the Option Agreement into compliance with Section 409A of the Code.” 
  

 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dellando Recardo CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6987

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Dellando Recardo Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Sutherland Clark, Office of the United States Attorney, John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore', Maryland, for Appel-lee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dellando Recardo Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 dis*825trict 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Campbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Campbell’s motion for a certificate of appealability 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
Christopher Royce KEARNEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed as from a nonfinal, nonappealable order.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Leung, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 660]

Appeal by the defen*583dant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), dated June 6, 2000, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) for forensic DNA testing of certain evidence recovered by the police.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) for forensic DNA testing of certain evidence recovered by the police *(see People v McCloud,*303 AD2d 604 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 584 [2003]; *People v Logan,*291 AD2d 459 [2002]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
To: Federal Aviation Administration 

From: Robert G Breese

Subject: Petition For Exemption Title 14 CFR

Date: October 14, 2015

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am filing this petition for exemption so I may follow all rules and guidelines set forth by your 

organization pertaining to the use of my DJI Phantom 3 Professional drone. I am not quite sure if I fall 

into the “commercial use” category but thought I was better safe then sorry. Having been a police 

officer for twenty seven years and retiring as a Captain I have always strived to uphold the law.

After retiring in 2006 I became an avid photographer. As the years progressed I expanded my 

photography equipment to include various high end cameras and lenses as well as computers and 

photoshop software. Most of my work includes scenic landscape images from my home town of 

Warwick NY. I also shoot in other areas of the Hudson Valley NY. 

Editors of various newspapers and magazines saw my work and asked if I would do freelance 

photography for them from time to time. I have been doing this for several years now. 

Several months ago I purchased the above mentioned drone and have used it many times. Keeping in 

mind the safety guidelines set forth by the FAA. The drone/camera is another piece of photography 

equipment to give the readers and public a different perspective of many of the same areas covered by 

ground for years. No one was able to get aerial photos but the richest of photographers who could 

afford to rent a plane for a few hours. 

The public is very interested in the still and video photography I have produced of working farms to 

everyday life in the Village of Warwick NY. All the time maintaining the safety needed during the proper 

operation of this UAV. Any place I have used this equipment there has always been a huge interest in 

this technology. There is great public interest in the photos and videos it produces.

Although photography is still my main hobby in retirement some of my work gets published generating a 

small amount of money for me. I have not received any money for a drone photo yet but I am sure it will 

probably happen at some point in the future. Does this require an exemption or is it covered under 

hobbyist?

Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Robert G Breese 

12Annabelle Lane

Warwick, NY 10990

Email: RGB319@gmail.com Phone: 845-242-5918
EXHIBIT 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 CHRONIMED INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


                                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                               Sept. 27,        Sept. 29,
                                                                                 1996             1995
                                                                                -------          -------
<S>                                                                              <C>              <C>   
Primary
  Average shares outstanding .........................................           12,462           12,002
  Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants -- based on the treasury
     stock method using average market price .........................              750              914
                                                                                -------          -------

         Total .......................................................           13,212           12,916
                                                                                =======          =======

Net income ...........................................................          $ 1,247          $   725
                                                                                =======          =======

Net income per share .................................................          $   .09          $   .06
                                                                                =======          =======



Fully Diluted
  Average shares outstanding .........................................           12,462           12,002
  Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants -- based on the treasury
     stock method using the higher of average
     or ending market price ..........................................              750              914
                                                                                -------          -------


         Total .......................................................           13,212           12,916
                                                                                =======          =======

Net income ...........................................................          $ 1,247          $   725
                                                                                =======          =======

Net income per share .................................................          $   .09          $   .06
                                                                                =======          =======

</TABLE>
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 614

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CV-13-487

ST. JOHN’S REGIONAL HEALTH

CENTER and SISTERS OF MERCY

HEALTH

APPELLANTS

V.

GREGORY D. BARTLETT

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered October 30, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COMMISSION

[NO. G202264]

REBRIEFING ORDERED

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge

Appellee Gregory D. Bartlett worked for appellants as a paramedic when he injured

his right knee on the evening of January 4, 2012. The Commission found that Bartlett had

proved that he had sustained a compensable injury and that he was entitled to medical and

temporary total-disability benefits; the employer now appeals, arguing that substantial

evidence does not support the Commission’s decision. We cannot reach the merits of

appellants’ arguments because we must order rebriefing.

First, the addendum does not include appellee’s medical records, which are instead

abstracted. Rule 4-2(a)(8) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

requires that the addendum include “any document essential to an understanding of the case

and the issues on appeal.” We hold that the medical records in a workers’ compensation case

in which compensability is at issue are essential to an understanding of the case and must be
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 614

included in the addendum. In addition, we note that the abstract is not in first person, as

required by Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B). 

Appellants have fifteen days from the date of this order to file a substituted brief that

conforms with our rules. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We emphasize that the examples we

have noted are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies; counsel should carefully

review the rules and ensure that no other deficiencies exist.

Rebriefing ordered.

GLOVER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. 

McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.C., by: Patricia L. Musick and Christopher S. Moberg,

for appellants.

Tolley & Brooks, P.A., by: Evelyn E. Brooks, for appellee.

2
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



|(1) | The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2008



/s/ Stryker Warren, Jr.Stryker Warren, Jr.Chief Executive Officer/s/ Rebecca J. WeberRebecca J. WeberController and Director of Finance
Lynwood ROBERTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2099

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 01, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Olander R. BYNUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katy POOLE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6100

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Olander R. Bynum, Appellant Pro Se. Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Olander R. Bynum seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for compensation and for default judgment and granting the defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Bynum seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly) we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
#### VOXATHON LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FCA US LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Defendants Subaru of America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2016-1614

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 9, 2016

David R. Bennett, Direction IP Law, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Matthew D. Satchwell, DLA Piper US LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Paul Richard Steadman; Aaron Gabriel Fountain, Austin, TX,

(Prost, Chief Judge, Clevenger and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir, R. 36.
David Ray BAYS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Wayne HOLT, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11441 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Wayne Holt, Pro Se

*341Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent David Wayne Holt has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Holt has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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. ,

*

 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.