alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.(A).1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Yosef Shiran, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Tefron 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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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(s) 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 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 data; 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: April 1, 2004



/s/ Yosef Shiran
----------------
Yosef Shiran
Chief Executive Officer
# CE2004088EN.01037502.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/375 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/375

---

(2004/C 88 E/0381)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1821/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Sausage meat

Subject:

Is the Commission satisfied that the labelling of the ingredients of sausages makes clear to consumers what they are eating, particularly as regards fat content? What measures have been taken now that the food industry has developed new products to ensure that fats remain solid when cooked to make clear to consumers that the fat content of economy sausages has increased?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

(10 July 2003)

The labelling of sausages intended to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer is subject to the rules laid down by Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 (1), as amended in particular by Commission Directive 2001/101/EC of 26 November 2001 (2) and Commission Directive 2002/86/EC of 6 November 2002 (3).

1

2

3

Directive 2000/13/EC (Article 7.2) provides that the quantity of the ingredient which characterises the foodstuff must be stated. In the case of sausages, therefore, it is the quantity of meat which must be stated.

Although there is no obligation to indicate the quantity of fat present in the meat or present in the end product, there is a maximum limit of fat that meat may contain, for example 30 % fat in pigmeat and 25 % fat in beef and veal (Annex to Directive 2001/101/EC).

Moreover, if these maximum fat limits are exceeded, the meat content must be adjusted downwards and the presence of fat must be indicated in the list ingredients.

Pursuant to Directive 2002/86/EC, the labelling of the products concerned must be in conformity with the rules indicated above with effect from 1 July 2003.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

1

(2)  Commission Directive 2001/101/EC of 26 November 2001 amending Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 310, 28.11.2001.

2

(3)  Commission Directive 2002/86/EC of 6 November 2002 amending Directive 2001/101/EC as regards the date from which trade in products not in conformity with Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council is prohibited, OJ L 305, 7.11.2002.

3

---
# CE2004078EN.01037001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/370 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/370

---

(2004/C 78 E/0390)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1517/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   Economic Partnership Agreements

Subject:

Information and training sessions on how to facilitate non-state actors' participation in dialogue on EPAs are being prepared for EU Delegations. Would the Commission agree that, as ACP Parliaments should be kept informed on such issues and be encouraged to scrutinise the process, these training sessions should also be extended to ACP Parliaments?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

(26 May 2003)

The Commission has repeatedly stressed that Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) negotiations will need to be accompanied by comprehensive consultations with ‘non-state actors’ in both the Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States. This process has already started, but communication and consultations in the ACP States will be enhanced as soon as negotiations on the regional level have started. Commission Delegations will have an important role to play in this context.

The target groups of these activities will vary among countries and regions, and should include business and employer associations, trade unions, farmers associations, consumer groups, non governmental organisations (NGOs), etc. The involvement of trade experts in ACP universities and research institutions will be important as well, especially also in the context of the Sustainability Impact Assessment.

ACP parliaments, and notably those parliamentarians who focus in their work on trade and regional integration, should be fully associated with this process and will have the opportunity to form part of informal contact groups the Commission is going to establish on a regional basis. Indeed, parliamentarians should be in the best position to contribute to the negotiations, as they can make use of official ACP channels, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and the informal consultation networks which will be established.

The Parliament, and first of all the European members of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, could be very helpful in identifying appropriate ACP parliamentarians for this purpose. First contacts on this have been made and the Commission would welcome close co-operation in this regard.

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10785

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEN LAMONT KIRBY

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-202-2

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ken Lamont Kirby

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Kirby has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 542 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 542

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
  Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2007

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
  Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, 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. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Bureau of Reclamation, may conduct feasibility studies on projects that 
address water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River 
systems in the State of Idaho, and are considered appropriate for 
further study by the Bureau of Reclamation Boise Payette water storage 
assessment report issued during 2006.
    (b) Bureau of Reclamation.--A study conducted under this section 
shall comply with Bureau of Reclamation policy standards and guidelines 
for studies.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out this section 
$3,000,000.
    (d) Termination of Effectiveness.--The authority provided by this 
section terminates on the date that is 10 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PL
BRANDS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                          672
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   625,163
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     144,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                796,193
<PP&E>                          939,225
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,850,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           702,473
<BONDS>                         0
<COMMON>                        9,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      2,128,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    67,379
<SALES>                         1,441,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,441,265
<CGS>                           787,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   787,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                653,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (7,015)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (7,015)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (7,015)
<EPS-BASIC>                   .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .000



</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 33 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/03

by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Funding the VMS vessel monitoring system for fishing boats

Under Article22 of Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 (1) all fishing vessels over 18 metres in length must be equipped with a satellite-transceiver ‘blue box’ by 1 January 2004, and those over 15 metres in length by 1 January 2005.

In the case of fishing vessels over 24 metres long, for which VMS has been mandatory since July 1998, 100 % of the cost of acquiring the equipment was refunded on request by the European Union. In the case of cutters under 24 metres in length, however, all that will be paid, under the FIFG, is a subsidy equivalent to 25 % of the cost of acquisition. As well as the cost of purchase, there are running costs of up to EUR 500 per annum, representing an additional burden for fishermen.

Leaving aside the fact that this additional expenditure is hard to justify in the case of off-shore and one-day fisheries, can the Commission say whether it is prepared to eliminate the clear discrimination against cutters under 24 metres in length as regards the purchase of the ‘blue box’, for example by amending the regulation, by supporting relevant initiatives through the budget or through an EU contribution to the Member States' monitoring costs, which would also enable a refund to be paid for satellite monitoring equipment installed in 2003 or as of 2004?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

The Commission shares the concern that fishermen shall be treated equally during the extension of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) to smaller vessels.

In this respect, the assumption that the equipment for bigger vessels was funded at 100 % and that the equipment for smaller vessels can only be funded at 25 % does not correctly reflect the actual situation. In fact, for vessels already subject to VMS, a Community financial contribution has been paid proportionally to the expenditure incurred for the acquisition of the equipment up to a maximum amount. The maximum contribution in 1999 and 2000 was EUR 3 400.

For the vessels smaller than 24 metres overall, the Commission will grant aid under similar conditions as it did in the past for the bigger vessels, within the budgetary constraints.

----

(1)OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

----
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 941/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 941/2014 of 3 September 2014 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities            guaranteed [Роле Трапезица (Role Trapezitsa) (TSG)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 941/2014                     

# of 3 September 2014

# entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Роле Трапезица (Role Trapezitsa) (TSG)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Bulgaria's application to register the name ‘Роле Трапезица’                              (Role Trapezitsa) was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Роле Трапезица’ (Role Trapezitsa) should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name ‘Роле Трапезица’ (Role Trapezitsa) (TSG) is hereby entered in the register.

The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product in Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)                     set out in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014(3).                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 September 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 101, 5.4.2014, p. 15.                           

3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU)                              No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
# Council Decision (Euratom) 2015/1990Show full title

Council Decision (Euratom) 2015/1990 of 26 October 2015 approving the conclusion, by the European Commission, on behalf of            the European Atomic Energy Community, of the Agreement continuing the International Science and Technology Center         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (Euratom) 2015/1990                     

# of 26 October 2015

# approving the conclusion, by the European Commission, on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community, of the Agreement                        continuing the International Science and Technology Center                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 4 and the second                           paragraph of Article 101 thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)On 21 October 2013, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations for the establishment of an Agreement continuing                              the International Science and Technology Center between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (‘Euratom’)                              acting as one Party, Georgia, Japan, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of                              Kazakhstan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Tajikistan, and the United States of America (‘the Agreement’).

(2)Those negotiations have been successfully completed and the Agreement was initialled on 22 June 2015.

(3)The Agreement also covers matters falling under competences of Euratom.

(4)The signing of the Agreement is subject to a separate procedure as regards matters falling under the Treaty on European Union                              and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(5)The conclusion of the Agreement by the Commission, acting on behalf of Euratom, should be approved as regards matters falling                              within the competence of Euratom,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The conclusion by the European Commission, on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community, of the Agreement continuing                     the International Science and Technology Center is hereby approved(1).                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 26 October 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

F. Mogherini                            

1

The text of Agreement will be attached to the Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement                              continuing the International Science and Technology Center.
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 annual report on
Form 10-K of Tier Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), for the period ended
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald Johnston, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:







1.
            This
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
  amended.






2.
            The
      information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.







Dated:  December
      9, 2008
            /s/
      Ronald W. JohnstonRonald
      W. JohnstonChief
      Financial Officer
#### Paul Gonzalez, Appellant, v Turner Construction Company, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 310]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered June 3, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an ironworker employed by subcontractor Antemax, commenced this action, alleging claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6) and § 200, and for common-law negligence, against defendant general contractor Turner. Summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly granted since the Industrial Code sections cited by plaintiff as predicates for the claim are either insufficiently specific or inapplicable *(see Serrano v 432 Park S. Realty Co., LLC,*8 AD3d 202 [2004]). Also properly dismissed was the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, since plaintiffs task, dismantling a rig that had been rented by Antemax, did not involve a significant inherent risk attributable to an elevation differential *(see Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co.,*78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]). Rather, plaintiffs task involved “the type of ‘ordinary and usual’ peril a worker is com*833monly exposed to at a construction site” *(Misseritti v Mark TV Constr. Co.,*86 NY2d 487, 489 [1995]).

The record evidence establishes that no one from Turner was present at the time of the accident, and that Turner had no direct involvement in the performance of plaintiffs work or the manner in which Antemax’s rig was dismantled. Under these circumstances, there is insufficient basis for imposing liability against Turner either under Labor Law § 200 or on a common-law negligence theory *(see De La Rosa v Philip Morris Mgt. Corp.,*303 AD2d 190, 192 [2003]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.