alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF

VYYO INC.



I, Davidi Gilo, Chief Executive Officer of Vyyo Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Vyyo
Inc. (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;



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 registrant 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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) [paragraph reserved pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];



(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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



(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The
registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: February 10, 2005 |  | /s/    DAVIDI GILO                  
|                        |  | Davidi Gilo, Chief Executive Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 0342

_____________________________ S TORM R OYAL T HAYER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. Ke l vin C. Wells , Judge

.

September 25, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. Storm Royal Thayer appeals his life senten ce for second

degree murder, raising two issues. As to his challenge to the sentencing court’s refusal to impose a departure sentence, we dismiss this portion of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. See Wilson v. State , 306 So. 3d 1267 , 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that appellate review of the trial court ’ s denial of a downward departure sentence is only appropriate when the trial court “misapprehends its discretion to depart or refuses to exercise that discretion as a matter of policy”), rev. granted , No . SC20

- 1870, 2021 WL 1157838 (Fla. Mar. 26, 2021) , and Parrish v. State
, 349 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), rev. granted
, No. SC

- 2022

- 1457 , 2023 WL 5223320 (Fla. Aug. 15, 2023)

. We otherwise affirm without further comment.2 D ISMISSED in part; A FFIRMED in part.

L EWIS , R OBERTS , and R AY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Megan Lynne Long
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Damaris Esperanza Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of Infrastructure Materials Corp. (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully
complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Dated:
February 6, 2009





/s/
      Todd D. MontgomeryTodd
      D. MontgomeryChief
      Executive OfficerInfrastructure
      Materials Corp.





Dated:
February 6, 2009





/s/
      Randal LudwarRandal
      LudwarChief
      Financial OfficerInfrastructure
      Materials Corp.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Infrastructure Materials Corp. and will be retained by Infrastructure Materials
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit J 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223-10 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 3
USAO-BP-0033766

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223-10 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 3
USAO-BP-0033767

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223-10 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 3
#### The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Gregory CASTLE, Appellee.

No. 01-95-00604-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Aug. 17, 1995.

Sam Maida, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, District Attorney and Calvin Hartmann, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

*655Before OLIVER-PABBOTT, C.J., and O’CONNOR and TAFT, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the State from an allegedly illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion for extension to file the transcript.

The trial court suspended the sentence on February 14, 1995. The record does not show that a motion for new trial was filed. When no motion for new trial is filed, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 54 gives the appellant 60 days after sentence is imposed or suspended in open court to file the record. Tex.R.App.P. 54(b). To be timely, a motion for extension of time to file the transcript must be filed no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the transcript. Tex. R.App.P. 54(c). In this case, 60 days after the sentence was suspended was April 15, 1995. Because this was a Saturday, the last day for filing the transcript was April 17, 1995. Tex.R.Apf.P. 5(a). The State tendered the transcript to this Court on June 6, 1995, and filed a motion for extension of time to file the transcript on June 8, 1995. Thus, neither the transcript nor the motion for extension appear to be timely filed.

Unless an appellant timely files the transcript or timely moves for an extension of time, this Court has no authority to consider a late transcript or enlarge the time for filing it. *State v. Pope,*800 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.App.— Austin 1990, no pet.); Tex.R.App.P. 54(b), (c). The only exception to this rule is that a late filing of the transcript may be permitted on a showing that otherwise the appellant may be deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Tex.R.App.P. 83. This exception does not apply to the State. *Pope,*800 S.W.2d at 954. Because the transcript and motion for extension appear to be untimely, this Court appears to have no authority to consider the transcript or enlarge the time for filing it.

The State argues that it did not know which appellate court this appeal was assigned to until June 5, 41 days after the last day for filing the transcript. In such a situation, it is appropriate to file a motion for extension with both appellate courts. *See Johnson v. Sprint Transp., Inc.,*811 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ). Even filing one, preassignment motion for extension with the court that ultimately did not receive the assignment has been held to be sufficient. *See id.*We are aware of no ease law extending a court’s authority under Tex.R.App.P. 54(b), (c) where the appeal had not been assigned to the appellate court by the last day for filing the transcript.

Accordingly, we give the parties notice that we will dismiss this appeal unless the State, files, within 10 days of the date of this order, a response showing that the transcript was timely filed or that a timely motion for extension was filed.

It is so ORDERED.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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 registrant,
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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
  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 registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 5, 2010By:
    
    /s/ Robert Copple

Robert CoppleChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 13.2


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 of RiT Technologies Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eran Ayzik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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: June 28, 2010





By: /s/ Eran Ayzik


Eran Ayzik


Chief Financial Officer
#### Ples HEDRICK, Appellant/Employee, v. TREASURER OF the STATE of Missouri AS CUSTODIAN OF the SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent.

No. 69893.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Aug. 27, 1996.

*576Law Offices of Susan K. Roach, Susan K. Roach, Chesterfield, for Employee/Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Maria Campbell, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P. J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Pies Hedrick appeals an award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission granting him permanent partial disability compensation from the Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find that no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the award of the Commission pursuant to Rule 84.14(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
Amendment to Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Executive Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.34 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (the “Company”) currently maintains the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Executive Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Plan reserves to the Board of Directors of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (the “Board”)
the authority to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is desirable to amend the Plan to remove the
requirement that participants be employed on the date a bonus award is paid in order to receive payment of the bonus award, and instead require that a participant be employed on the December 31 prior to the date the bonus award is paid to
receive payment of the bonus award. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that, the Plan is hereby revised, effective December 31,
2008, in the following particulars: 
 1. Section 4 is amended to read as follows: 
 4. BONUS AWARD PAYMENTS 
 Bonus awards will normally be payable as soon as possible after the determination of
year-end audited financial results, after approval by the Compensation Committee. It is the intention of the Company that bonus award payments, under this Plan will not be subject to Section 409(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. Bonus awards
will be paid in cash and will be calculated using the Participant’s base salary on December 31. 
 If the Participant is not employed by the
Company on the December 31 before the date the bonus award payment is made, the bonus is forfeited. In the case of involuntary termination of employment, retirement, permanent disability, death, lay-off, or transfer to an affiliate of the
Company, a pro-rata share of the bonus award for the year may be made at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee. 
 If the Participant is on a
leave of absence (LOA) the bonus may be pro-rated for the portion of the Plan Year that was worked. 
 Notwithstanding any other provision of this plan, the
issuance of bonus awards is at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee at its sole discretion, may increase, decrease or withhold bonus awards. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is being executed as of the 11
th day of November, 2008. 
  

									
	 	 	 	 	 	 	ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
					
	Attest:	 	 /s/ Bradley Stein
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Maria R. Del Busto

		 	Bradley Stein	 		 		 	Maria R. Del Busto
		 	Vice President, General Counsel/Secretary	 		 		 	Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer
#### John MONDAINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 46414.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 21, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 2, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 21, 1993.

Willard B. Bunch, Kansas City, for appellant.

*719Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David B. Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and SMART and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing.

Judgment Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Terry E. SMITH, Defendant/Appellant. Terry E. SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 65016, 66581.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 28, 1995.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury for first degree sexual assault, § 566.100, RSMo Supp.1994. He was sentenced in accord with the jury’s assessment to five years’ imprisonment. He also appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. Defendant does not address any points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion and that appeal is considered abandoned. *State v. Nelson,*818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information *643only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 8.1
                                   -----------

                   LIST OF THE SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  COUNTRY OF                     INTEREST
      SUBSIDIARY                                INCORPORATION                    OWNERSHIP
      ----------                                -------------                    ---------
<S>                                                <C>                            <C>
      Europe-Visions A/S             (1)           Denmark                        100.0%
      EuroTrust PKI Services A/S     (2)           Denmark          100.0% (Assets sold April 1, 2004)
      EuroTrust Virus112 A/S         (3)           Denmark         100.0% Assets sold September 30, 2004
      InAphone A/S                   (4)           Denmark                60.0% Sold Jan. 1, 2005
</TABLE>
------------------------------------
     (1)          Formerly known as Euro909Media A/S
     (2)          Formerly known as EuroTrust Denmark A/S.
     (3)          Formerly known as Virus112.com A/S.
     (4)          Formerly known as 909.909 A/S


         Other   significant   operating    subsidiaries    consolidated   under
Europe-Visions  A/S and their  jurisdiction of  incorporation  and our ownership
interest in those subsidiaries at December 31, 2004:

                                                  COUNTRY OF         INTEREST
        SUBSIDIARY                              INCORPORATION        OWNERSHIP
        ----------                              -------------        ---------

        Ciac A/S                                   Denmark            100.0%
        Prime Vision A/S                           Denmark            100.0%
        Arhustudiet A/S                            Denmark            100.0%
        Publishing & Management ApS                Denmark             51.0%
        TV Akademiet A/S                           Denmark            100.0%
        Formedia A/S                               Denmark            100.0%
        Mobile Broadcasting A/S                    Denmark            100.0%
#### In the Interest of D.C.M., A Minor. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, Robert Clay Miller, Appellant, v. Teresa Lynn MILLER, Respondent. In the Interest of J.L.M., A Minor. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, Robert Clay Miller, Appellant, v. Teresa Lynn MILLER, Respondent.

Nos. WD 47103, WD 47104.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 10, 1993.

*852Thomas Eugene Hankins, Gladstone, for Robert Clay Miller.

Max Von Erdmannsdorf, Kansas City, for Juvenile Officer.

Thomas Dean Munro, Kansas City, for Teresa Lynn Miller.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from order of the trial court setting child support obligation in juvenile court proceeding.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1577]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Housing Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Farm Service Agency

7 CFR Chapter XVIII


Agency Name Change

AGENCIES: Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 
Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document amends the regulations to change the names of 
the Rural Housing and Community Development Service to the Rural 
Housing Service and the Rural Business and Cooperative Development 
Service to the Rural Business-Cooperative Service as a result of the 
Department of Agriculture reorganization.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Gartman, Regulations and 
Paperwork Management Division, Rural Economic and Community 
Development, room 6348-S, Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202-720-9745.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Secretary of Agriculture announced that the agency previously 
referred to as the Rural Housing and Community Development Service 
(RHCDS) is to be named the Rural Housing Service (RHS), and the agency 
previously referred to as the Rural Business and Cooperative 
Development Service (RBCDS) is to be named the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service (RBS). On December 26, 1995, USDA published in the 
Federal Register (60 FR 66713) a final rule that contained 
redelegations of authority for the Department of Agriculture and 
changed the names of RHCDS to RHS and RBCDS to RBS. This rule includes 
amendments to 7 CFR chapter XVIII that are necessary to bring agency 
regulations into alignment with the departmental reorganization.
    This action is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12866 since it involves only internal agency management. This action is 
not published for comment under the Administrative Procedure Act since 
it involves only internal agency management and publication for comment 
is unnecessary.
    Accordingly, 7 CFR Chapter XVIII is amended as follows:
    1. The heading of 7 CFR chapter XVIII is revised to read as 
follows:

CHAPTER XVIII--RURAL HOUSING SERVICE, RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE 
SERVICE, RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, AND FARM SERVICE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT 
OF AGRICULTURE

    2. In 7 CFR chapter XVIII, all references to ``Rural Housing and 
Community Development Service'' are revised to read ``Rural Housing 
Service'', all references to ``Rural Business and Cooperative 
Development Service'' are revised to read ``Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service'', all references to ``RHCDS'' are revised to read ``RHS'' and 
all references to ``RBCDS'' are revised to read ``RBS''.

    Dated: January 23, 1996.
Arthur C. Campbell,
Acting Under Secretary, Rural Economic and Community Development.
[FR Doc. 96-1577 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-07-U