alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a)**

I, Ron Ela, 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; 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 25, 2007 | /s/Ron Ela |
|---------------------|------------|

 

| ——————————— |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               | Ron Ela |   |
|                                                                    |  |  |

Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yanique Chantel COACH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-15864 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 15, 2017)

Michelle Thresher Taylor, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Nicole M. Andrejko, James D. Mandolfo, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Karla Mariel Reyes, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Yanique Chantel Coach, Pro Se

Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

*802PER CURIAM:

Stephen J. Langs, appointed counsel for Yanique Chantel Coach in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Coach’s conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.
#### Anna KALPAKE, Plaintiff, v. Abraham A. RIBICOFF, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.

No. 61 C 115.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Dec. 14, 1961.

Ernest Feldon, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

James P. O’Brien, U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

PERRY, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in this court on January 19, 1961, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeks review of a denial on November 3, 1960, by the Appeals Council, Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare of her request for review of a hearing examiner’s decision.

Said Section 405(g) provides that—

> “Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action *commenced within sixty days*after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. * * * ” (Italics supplied)

*496This matter is now before the court on the motion of defendant Secretary to dismiss the action.

It is the view of this court that because it does not affirmatively appear from the face of the complaint that this action was commenced within the time prescribed by aforesaid Section 405(g), it should be dismissed (a) for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and (b) for lack of jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter of the action.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the motion of defendant Secretary to dismiss this action be and it is hereby sustained and said action is dismissed (a) for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and (b) for lack of jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter of the action.
Fw: comment extension for SO 2 NAAQS?

Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 02/10/2010 07:31 AM

Please docket

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/10/2010 07:31 AM -----

From: Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Frey Betsy (DNREC)" <Elizabeth.Frey@state.de.us>

Date: 02/08/2010 01:38 PM

Subject: Re: comment extension for SO2 NAAQS?

Hi Betsy,

I do not anticipate an extension to the comment period but it is our practice to look at comments submitted 

after the close of the comment period to the maximum extent practicable. We understand, of course, the 

problem created by the snow for DE and as long as comments are received as soon as practicable, 

hopefully no later than the end of this week, we anticipate considering them fully. 

Thanks,

Michael

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

"Frey Betsy (DNREC)" Hello Michael, Due to the state of emergenc... 02/08/2010 11:03:26 AM

From: "Frey Betsy (DNREC)" <Elizabeth.Frey@state.de.us>

To: Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/08/2010 11:03 AM

Subject: comment extension for SO2 NAAQS?

Hello Michael,

Due to the state of emergency in Delaware caused by the snowstorm, our main offices are closed and

we will not be able to submit the state’s comments on the SO2 NAAQS proposal by the deadline today.  

Do you know if there will be an extension granted?

Thanks for your help,
          Betsy Frey

Betsy Frey

QA Coordinator

Air Quality Management

DE DAWM/DNREC

715 Grantham Lane

New Castle, DE  19720

Ph: 302‐323‐4542, Fax: 302‐323‐4598

betsy.frey@state.de.us
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6339 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6339

    To prohibit withholding or revoking Federal funds based on the 
     definition of ``sex'' used by a State, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2023

    Mr. Green of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit withholding or revoking Federal funds based on the 
     definition of ``sex'' used by a State, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``States Choose Common Sense Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON WITHHOLDING OR REVOKING FEDERAL FUNDS BASED ON 
              THE DEFINITION OF ``SEX'' USED BY A STATE.

    (a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds authorized to be made available 
to a State may be withheld or revoked on the basis of the State having 
in place any law, regulation, or policy that defines ``sex'' based on 
the biological sex of an individual, as determined by the anatomy or 
genetics of the individual at the time of birth.
    (b) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``State'' means the 
following:
            (1) The 50 States of the United States.
            (2) The District of Columbia.
            (3) A territory or possession of the United States.
            (4) Any political subdivision, instrumentality, or 
        authority of a State.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Yak Communications Inc. (the Company) Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul
Broude, principal financial officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, as amended; 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: April 21, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul Broude            
|                     |  |     |  | Paul Broude                
|                     |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer
Rakeith A. SHERRON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0477

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 08, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6292 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6292

 To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
   Policy Act of 1977 to extend grants and fellowships for food and 
                    agricultural sciences education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2023

  Ms. Caraveo (for herself and Mr. Feenstra) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
   Policy Act of 1977 to extend grants and fellowships for food and 
                    agricultural sciences education.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Future Funding for Agricultural 
Research, Mentorship, and Education Reauthorization Act'' or the 
``Future FARMER Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL 
              SCIENCES EDUCATION.

    Section 1417(m) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3152(m)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
        adding ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 
        2028.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The President, Directors, and Company, of the Union Bank *versus*James Emerson.

A kettle in a fulling-mill, used for dyeing cloth, being set in brick-work, passed to the mortgagee of the mill.

Trover for a copper kettle. One *Kellogg,*in the year 1800, being seised in fee of a parcel of land in *Bridgton,*on which was a fulling-mill, mortgaged the same, without mentioning the appurtenances, to the plaintiffs in fee; and in 1815 the plaintiffs, by their agent, entered upon the mortgaged premises, in presence of two witnesses, of whom the defendant was one. The kettle in question was fixed in brick-work in the mill at the time of executing the mortgage, and was then, and for a long time after, used as a dye-kettle for dyeing cloth. When the plaintiffs took possession under their mortgage, the mill was in a dilapidated state, not having been used for some years previous; and the brick-work, in which the kettle was set, had in part fallen down. Soon afterwards *Kellogg*took the kettle out of the mill, and sold it to the defendant, he knowing it to be the same.

*Greenleaf*for the plaintiffs.

*Emery*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

This kettle was a part of the íealty, and passed to the plaintiffs by *Kellogg’s*mortgage. It could not be removed without actual injury to the mill. It is true * that, by late decisions, tenants have been favored in questions of this kind, and the strictness of the ancient law has been much relaxed. And in the case before us, had the defendant, after making the mortgage deed, put this kettle into the mill, we should have considered him authorized to remove it before delivering possession to the plaintiffs. This fixture was essential to the use of the mill. It was attached to it at the time of executing the mortgage, and it remained there when the plaintiffs took possession. They had a right to retain it; and the defendant must answer to them for the value of it. *(a)*

*Defendant defaulted*

(a)

**Vide 3 *Powell on Mortg.*by *Coventry,*1041, d. note, Am. ed
Christopher HUNT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2179

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Order entered April 8 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 00201

- CR

JESUS PATRICIO LOPEZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. F10

- 63646

- V



### O RDER

The State’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED , and the time for

the State to file its brief is extended to May 5, 2014.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Michael S. GORBEY, a/k/a Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Christopher ZYCH, Warden, USP Lee, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7649

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2017

Decided: May 10, 2017

Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael S. Gorbey, a District of Columbia Code offender incarcerated at USP Lee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *see Modley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,*278 F.3d 1306, 1308-10 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 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, 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 petition 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 Gorbey has not *166made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gorbey’s motion to amend his appeal to include a claim not presented below, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*
Richard G. MIDWOOD, Jr., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-3050

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM XIRCOM,
INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         123,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,568
<INVENTORY>                                     15,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,404
<PP&E>                                          53,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 213,741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,899
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                     159,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   213,741
<SALES>                                         96,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,022
<CGS>                                           56,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,363
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,575
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,801
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,774
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,774
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS  OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999 FOUND ON
PAGES 3-5 OF THE  COMPANY'S  FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  OCT-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             209,993
<SECURITIES>                                        13,557
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,170,013
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (158,124)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,470,593
<PP&E>                                           1,647,271
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,213,053)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,617,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,671,609
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           959,289
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,038,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,617,325
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,961,715
<CGS>                                            3,279,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,047,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57,788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (85,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (85,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (85,721)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)



</TABLE>