alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.4





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A)


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Kevin Hershberger, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of ReWalk Robotics Ltd.; and





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.


/s/ Kevin HershbergerKevin HershbergerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)








Date: April 27, 2017
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2014 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2014-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.                                      NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.                                      The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.                                      This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.                                      A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2015 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.                                      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2015.

 

6.                                      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 29th day of March, 2016.

 

----

 

March 29, 2016

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis |
|--------|--------|--------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis     |
|   | Title: | President          |

 

----
DENIED and Opinion Filed September 25, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-01063-CV

IN RE SEBRA PROUTT AND RASHAD WHITE, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1-24-1007

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Breedlove

Before the Court is relators’ September 9, 2024 pro se petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. Relators ask this Court to compel the trial court to return their 

children.

To the extent that the petition is filed pro se by relator Sebra Proutt, we decline 

to consider it because she has been appointed an attorney ad litem. See In re Jones, 

No. 04-06-00026-CV, 2006 WL 286782, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 8, 

2006, orig. proceeding) (explaining that absence of right to hybrid representation 

means relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus will be treated as presenting 

nothing for Court’s consideration).
–2–

Relators’ petition also does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–

(c), (e)–(k); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). Thus, relator’s petition does not meet the 

requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of 

mandamus relief. See In re Guillaume, No. 05-24-00765-CV, 2024 WL 3548511, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying 

mandamus relief based on relator’s failure to comply with several Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure).

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition.

Additionally, based on our review, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus 

contains unredacted sensitive data, including minors’ full names, in violation of 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we 

also strike relators’ petition.

241063f.p05 /Maricela Breedlove/

MARICELA BREEDLOVE

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 727 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 727

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding for 
    the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2019.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2017

 Mr. Lamborn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding for 
    the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2019.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC 
              BROADCASTING AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2019.

    (a) In General.--Section 396 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 396) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(n) Prohibition on Federal Funds After Fiscal Year 2019.--No 
Federal funds may be made available to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting after fiscal year 2019.''.
    (b) Corporation Prohibited From Accepting Federal Funds.--
Subsection (g) of such section is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``subject to 
        paragraph (3)(C),'' before ``obtain''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a semicolon;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                subparagraph:
            ``(C) accepting funds from the Federal Government after 
        fiscal year 2019.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further amended--
            (1) in subsection (k)(3)(A)(iv)(II), by inserting ``through 
        fiscal year 2019'' after ``amounts received''; and
            (2) in subsection (m)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``through fiscal 
                year 2019'' after ``every three years thereafter''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and through 
                fiscal year 2019,'' after ``1989,''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7230 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7230

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, as the 
              ``Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. POSTMASTER FRAZIER B. BAKER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Postmaster 
Frazier B. Baker Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7230

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, as the 
              ``Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post Office''.
```
DENIE D and Opinion Filed September 25 , 2024

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 24 - 01063 - CV IN RE SEBRA PROUTT A ND RASHAD WHITE , Relators Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1 - 24 - 1007 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Breedlove Before the Court is relators’ September 9, 2024 pro se peti tion for writ of habeas corpus
. Relato rs ask this Court to compel the trial court to return their children. To the extent that the petition is filed pro se by relator Sebra Proutt, we decline to consider it because she has been appointed an attorney ad lit em. See In re Jones , No. 04

- 06

- 00026

- CV, 2006 WL 286782, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Feb. 8, 2006 , orig. proceeding ) (explaining that absence of right to hybrid representation means relator ’ s pro se petition for writ of mandamus will be treated as present ing nothing for C ourt ’ s consideration )
.– 2

–

Relator s’ petition also does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in numerous respects. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.1; T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(a)

– ( c) , (e)

– ( k ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7(a). Thus, relator ’ s petit ion does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Guillaume , No. 05

- 24

- 00765

- CV, 2024 WL 3548511, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas July 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandam us relief based on relator ’ s failure to comply with several Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure). Accordingly, we deny relators ’ petition. Additionally, based on our review, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus contains unredacted sensitive data, includi ng minor s’ full name s , in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.9. Accordingly, we also strike relators’ petition. 241063f.p05 /Maricela Breedlove/ MARICELA BREEDLOVE JUSTICE
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Todd Vincent EDWARDS.

No. 2010-KK-0849.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Edwards, Todd Vincent; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 04-1111; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-799.

Denied.
#### Darius Lamount WILSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-2605.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 6, 2011.

Darius Lamount Wilson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(4)(B).

BENTON, C.J., HAWKES and CLARK, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>
SNODGRASS
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants

[LOGO]

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Shareholders and
the Board of Directors
of Sistersville Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to  incorporation  by  reference  of our report dated April 14, 2000,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Sistersville  Bancorp, Inc. as of
March 31, 2000 and 1999,  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of income,
comprehensive  income,  stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the two
years in the period ended March 31, 2000.  Said report  appears as Exhibit 13 of
Sistersville Bancorp, Inc.'s annual Form 10-KSB.



/s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C
Wheeling, West Virginia

June 14, 2000


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                       <C>                  <C>
S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400  Phone: 304-233-5050  Facsimile: 304-233-3062

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ViewCast.com, Inc.;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 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)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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
functions):
   Date:  May 16, 2011
    /s/  Laurie L. LathamLaurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Herman SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0695.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Smith, Herman; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 07-3494, 07-4064, 07-4598; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2010-KH-88.

Denied. As to relator’s motion for production of documents seeking the district attorney’s file, relator must first address his request to the records’ custodians. R.S. 44:31; *State ex rel. Shelton v. State,*00-1901 (La.9/14/01), 796 So.2d 672; *State ex rel. McKnight v. State,*98-2258 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/3/98), 742 So.2d 894.

GUIDRY, J., recused.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 as ADOPTED PURUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 each of the undersigned officers of Aquis
Communications Group, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify to such
officer's knowledge that:

      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002
      (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements 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: November 13, 2002                        /s/ Alex E. Stillwell
                                                -------------------------
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                Aquis Communications Group, Inc.


Dated: November 13, 2002                        /s/ D. Brian Plunkett
                                                -------------------------
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                Aquis Communications Group, Inc.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William YANCY.

No. 2010-KK-2435.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 28, 2010.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 491-632; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1520.

Denied.
#### Scott, Appellee, *v.*Wix, Appellant.

(No. 3512

Decided January 8, 1943.)

*Mr. Harry F. Clarke,*for appellee.

*Mr. A. J. Bianchi,*for appellant.

Doyle, P. J.

Aubrey W. Wix was charged with: bastardy in the Municipal Court of Akron under authority of the statutes applicable to such charge. Trial was had to a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor-of the complainant and against the accused person. Judgment was thereupon entered upon the verdict as-returned. From this final order, appeal on questions of law is prosecuted to this court.

The undisputed evidence establishes that, during the-deliberation of the jury, request was made by the body for additional instructions. The trial judge ordered them into the jury box, and, without inquiry as to the-nature of the instructions desired by the jury, peremptorily refused to charge further.

The record shows that counsel for each litigant was present and timely objection made by the defendant. Mr. Bianchi. counsel for the defendant, moved the-court to inquire of the jury as to the nature of the re*520quested instructions. This motion was overruled. Mr. Biauchi then “moved the court to give them additional instructions.” This motion was also overruled.

It is necessary only to direct our attention to the conduct of the court, to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a proper trial.

Section 11420-6, General Code, provides:

“After the jurors retire to deliberate, if they disagree as to the testimony, or desire to be further informed on the law of the case, they may request the officer in charge to conduct them to the court, which shall give the information sought upon matters of law, and also, in the presence of or after notice to the parties or their counsel, may state its recollection of the testimony upon a disputed point.”

When a jury has been brought into court pursuant to this statutory authority, it is the duty of the trial judge to permit it, through its spokesman, to state what information is requested, and a peremptory refusal in the presence of counsel and over timely objection is prejudicial error. See *Hrovat*v. *Cleveland Ry. Co.,*125 Ohio St., 67, 180 N. E., 549, 84 A. L. R., 215.

Any other ruling by this court would directly attack the integrity of court proceedings and nullify the statute.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*

Stevens and Washburn, JJ., concur.
648 A.2d 701

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES F. CARNEY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 6, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that JAMES F. CARNEY of ROSELAND, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, be publicly reprimanded for violating *RPC*8.4(c) by failing to reveal to a client that the financial consultant to whom respondent referred her for advice regarding the investment of a substantial settlement was respondent’s wife;

And the Disciplinary Review Board further recommending that respondent be ordered to pay $7,500 to the client as restitution;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and JAMES F. CARNEY is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent pay the sum of $7,500 to Jacqueline E. Limite on a schedule satisfactory to the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### In the Matter of the MASHBURN MARITAL TRUST.

No. 2011-C-0490.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Mashburn, Don; Mashburn, Joseph P.; Mashburn, Joseph Patón “Pat”; Mashburn, Richard Anthony; —Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 71,685, 2001-003363; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1104.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Bacardney Wayne GEORGE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2761.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re George, Bacardney Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 07-1162; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-143.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry LOYA.

No. 2010-KK-2350.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 27, 2010.

In re Loya, Larry; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *280Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 3385-87, 7371-87; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 10-01080.

Denied.
#### Dylan R. CHARLES, et al. v. CANAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al.

No. 2010-CC-1830.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Canal Indemnity Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 20081470; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00548.

Denied.