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

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

**Of Chief Executive Officer**

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Stephen J. Rattner, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that: 

1. I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007; 

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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor 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, includingits 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 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal 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 tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting 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: March 12, 2008
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

                           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 Radware Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Meir Moshe, acting
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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; 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 1, 2003





                                        /s/ Meir Moshe
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Meir Moshe
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Critchelow’s Admr. *v.*Hagerman.

Statements — Confession — Attorney and Client — Evidence.

The statements or confession of a party to an action, in relation to the subject-matter of the controversy, as a general rule, are competent as evidence against him; but such statements or confessions must have been made by him, or made in his presence, and assented to by him. An attorney’s statements made in the absence of his client is not competent evidence.

APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT-COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.

June 26, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

After appellee’s demurrer to the petition was sustained he withdrew the amended petition and it then was no longer a part of the pleading's in the action.

The statements or confessions of a party to an action in relation to the subject-matter of the controversy as a general rule are competent as evidence against him; but such statements or confessions must have been made by him, or have been made in his presence, and assented to by him.

The statements contained in the amended petition were made, as the attorney proves, by himself in the absence of appellant, that he had never read them, and did not know what the paper con-' tained. They were consequently neither made nor assented to by appellant and should not have been admitted as evidence against him. What weight was given to them by the jury, or what influence they may have had in producing the verdict, is not for us to say; but it is alleged in said amendment that the intestate sold and delivered the mares to appellee, which, if the jury believed to be true, must have been fatal to a recovery in this action. In view of the facts proved by the attorney said amended petition was not competent evidence and was improperly admitted. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 23

- 00925

- CR Pedro MALDONADO MORALES , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 227th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CR9135 Honorable Christine Del Prado , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: November 8, 2023
DISMISSED Appellant Pedro Maldonado Morales entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which he pleaded nolo contendere to the charged offense. The t rial court imposed a sentence on October 3, 2023 in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea

bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). This court must dismiss an appeal “i f a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id

. The clerk’s record includes the written plea bargain agreement which includes a waiver of the right to appeal those matter that were raised by wri tten motion filed04

- 23

- 0092 5

- CR

- 2

- and ruled on before trial. See id. 25.2(a)(2). The record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. 25.2(a)(2). The record also ap pears to support the trial court’s certification that

a

ppellant does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certificati on is accurate).
On October 24 , 2023, we ordered appellant to file a response establishing an amended certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the appellate record. See
T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d), 37.1. We advised appellant that if a supplemental clerk’s record was required to show he has the right to appeal, he was required to request a supplemental record from the trial court clerk and file a copy of the request with this court. Finally, we admonished appellant that a failure to satisfactorily respond to this order within the time provided would result in the dismissal of this appeal.
On October 30 , 2023, a ppellant’s counsel filed a response to our order agreeing appellant entered into a plea bargain with the State , appellant pleaded nolo contendere in accordance with the plea bargain, t he trial court imposed a sentence in accordance with the agreement , and the signed certificate stated appellant had no right of appeal

. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See id. 2 5.2(d) ; see also Ex Parte Torres , 483 S.W.3d
35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (addressing Padilla v. Kentucky ineffective assistance claim via habeas appeal).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN LARCOME.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
that because the district court sanctioned it by ordering it to pay

respondents' attorney fees and costs and a final judgment need not include a post-judgment award of fees and costs, the failure to include the amount of fees and costs awarded does not defeat finality here. We disagree.

Respondents' sole claim in the petition for judicial review was for sanctions against appellant for its failure to mediate in good faith and comply with the statutory requirements for mediation. The district court's order sanctions appellant by ordering it to pay respondents' attorney fees and costs and directs respondents to file an affidavit of attorney fees and memorandum of costs within 10 days. Under these circumstances, the award of attorney fees and costs is part of the substance of the district court's order rather than a post-judgment award. While respondents have filed an affidavit of attorney fees and a memorandum of costs, the district court has not yet entered an order determining the amount of attorney fees and costs. Thus, the amount of the sanction has not yet been determined with finality and we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See NRAP 3A(b)(1); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000) Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 44044) 2cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Thomas J. Tanksley, Settlement Judge Ballard Spahr, LLP Del Grosso Law, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A me 3
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 26, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VECENTIE MORALES, JR., 

a/ka/ Vee S. MORALES, JR., 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN JONES, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 10-6163

(D.C. No. 5:08-CV-01282-C)

ORDER

Before TACHA, KELLY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

The petitioner appeals a recommendation made by a magistrate judge. We

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Except for proceedings conducted by the magistrate judge on consent of the

parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to

hear an appeal taken directly from a decision of a magistrate judge. See Colorado

Building & Construction Trade Council v. B.B. Andersen Construction Co., 879

F.2d 809 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Appellate Case: 10-6163 Document: 01018463680 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Page: 1 
2

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 10-6163 Document: 01018463680 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Page: 2
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



I, Martin Hernandez, Chief Financial Officer of Rainmaker Systems, Inc.
(the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Martin Hernandez   
|Martin Hernandez       
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 22, 2004
#### In the Matter of Newark Insurance Company, Respondent, v Jacqueline Caruso, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 892]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the appeal is *614from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.H.O.), dated August 29, 2003, which, after a framed issue hearing, granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Physical contact is a condition precedent to recovery on an uninsured motorist claim *(see*Insurance Law § 5217; *Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Leconte,*3 AD3d 534 [2004]; *Matter of Eveready Ins. Co. v Scott,*1 AD3d 436 [2003]; *Matter of Great N. Ins. Co. v Ballinger,*303 AD2d 503 [2003]). The insured has the burden of establishing that the loss sustained was caused by an uninsured vehicle; namely, that physical contact occurred, that the identity of the owner and operator of the offending vehicle could not be ascertained, and that the insured’s efforts to ascertain such identity were reasonable *(see Matter of American Sec. Ins. Co. v Calarco,*85 AD2d 693 [1981]; *Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. v Lombardo,*30 AD2d 1047 [1968]). In this case, only the issue of physical contact is disputed.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the uncontroverted evidence adduced at the hearing established that the appellant’s accident was caused by physical contact with a hit- and-run automobile. As the court’s determination to the contrary was not supported by a fair interpretation of the credible evidence, its order granting the insurer’s petition for a stay of arbitration must be reversed *(see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. [Landau],*20 AD2d 699 [1964]; *see also Greenhill v Stillwell,*306 AD2d 434 [2003]; *Coverdale v Zucker,*261 AD2d 429 [1999]; *cf. Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon,*251 AD2d 571 [1998]; *Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio,*242 AD2d 530 [1997]). S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 26, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT PETER GRENIER,

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

STEVE HARTLEY, Warden; JOHN

SUTHERS, The Attorney General of the

State of Colorado, 

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-1093

 (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02553-ZLW)

ORDER

Appellant has failed to file a response to the show cause order that the court filed

on March 22, 2010; accordingly, this appeal is dismiss for failure to prosecute. See 10th

Cir. R. 42.1. A copy of this order shall stand as the mandate of this court. 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1093 Document: 01018408880 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 Page: 1
CHERRY, J., concurring: For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree that appellant lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the disposition of this appeal. 

# On Cherry

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. Joseph T. Bonaventure, Senior Judge David J. Merrill, P.C. David A. Rosenberg Howard Kim & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 444V4.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,



In connection with the annual report on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) of Newtek Business Services, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 Newtek as of and for the periods covered in
the Report.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Barry SloaneBarry Sloane, Chief Executive Officer/s/ Brian A. WassermanBrian A. Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer




March 30, 2004
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DANUEL JUNIOR DYER,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7018

(D.C. No. 6:08-CR-00025-FHS-5)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Danuel Junior Dyer entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute and distribution of controlled substances in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. His plea agreement included a waiver of his right to

appeal his conviction or sentence. Despite his appeal waiver, Mr. Dyer filed an

appeal seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence. The government then

Appellate Case: 10-7018 Document: 01018464777 Date Filed: 07/27/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

moved to enforce the appeal waiver pursuant to our decision in United States v.

Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

Mr. Dyer has now filed a response to the government’s motion to enforce

the plea agreement, in which he concedes through counsel that “as a part of the

plea agreement he entered into in this case, [he] executed a broad waiver of his

appellate and post-conviction rights.” Resp. at 1. He notes, however, that he

reserved his right to bring a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel in the matter of his guilty plea and plea agreement. 

Mr. Dyer concludes his response by asking this court to dismiss his appeal

without prejudice to his right to file a § 2255 motion. 

Because Mr. Dyer has not challenged the government’s motion to enforce,

and he has asked this court to dismiss his appeal, we GRANT the motion to

enforce the appeal waiver, without prejudice to Mr. Dyer’s right to file a § 2255

motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty

plea and waiver, and we DISMISS the appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM

Appellate Case: 10-7018 Document: 01018464777 Date Filed: 07/27/2010 Page: 2
EXHIBIT 3.3



CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE

CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION

OF

VENTANA
MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.



It is hereby certified that:



|1. | The name of the corporation is Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. (hereinafter, the Corporation)
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended by striking out Article IV thereof and by substituting in lieu of said Article IV the following new Article IV:
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This corporation is authorized to issue
two classes of stock to be designated Common Stock and Preferred Stock. The total number of shares of Common Stock which this corporation is authorized to issue is 100,000,000, and the total number of shares of Preferred Stock which this corporation
is authorized to issue is 5,000,000. Each share of Common Stock and each share of Preferred Stock has a par value of $0.001. The Preferred Stock may be issued from time to time in one or more series pursuant to a resolution or resolutions providing
for such issue duly adopted by the Board of Directors (authority to do so being expressly vested in the Board). The Board of Directors is hereby further authorized to fix or alter the voting powers, designations, preferences and qualifications,
limitations or restrictions granted to or imposed upon additional series of Preferred Stock, and the number of shares constituting any such series and the designation thereof. Subject to compliance with applicable protective rights which have been
or may be granted to Preferred Stock or series thereof in Certificates of Designation or this corporations Certificate of Incorporation, the rights, privileges, preferences and restrictions of any such additional series may be subordinate to
or pari passu with (including, without limitation, inclusion of provisions with respect to liquidation and acquisition and dividend preferences, or approval of matters by vote or written consent) the rights of any present or future class or series
of Preferred Stock or Common Stock.



|3. | The amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation herein certified has been duly adopted and written consent has been given in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 211 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. has caused this certificate to be signed by Nicholas Malden, its Chief Financial Officer, as of July 19, 2005.



/s/ Nicholas MaldenNicholas Malden,Chief Financial Officer