alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 13.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 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, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roy Zisapel, acting Chief Executive 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; 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: March 16, 2004  |   |   | /s/ Roy Zisapel               |   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |   | Roy Zisapel                   |   |
|                       |   |   | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|                       |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

88

----
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   In connection with the Annual Report of AIMS Worldwide, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gerald Garcia, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/Gerald Garcia, Jr. Gerald Garcia, Jr., Chief Executive Officer March 31, 2009
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM SMOTHERS.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
THE MISSION: Space shuttle Discovery’s STS-133 mission 

will carry the Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and the 

Express Logistics Carrier-4 (ELC-4) to the International Space 

Station. The PMM is the last module a space shuttle will deliver 

for permanent attachment to the station.

During the 11-day flight, the PMM will be attached to the Earthfacing side of the Unity node and Drew and Bowen will make two 

spacewalks to upgrade and repair sections of the station’s exterior. Bowen replaced astronaut Tim Kopra, who was injured in a 

bicycle accident in January 2011.

The PMM contains equipment, supplies and Robonaut 2 

(R2), a state-of-the art robot capable of handling a wide 

range of spacewalking tools and interfaces from inside 

the station. R2 will help NASA gather more knowledge 

about human and robotic interactions in space.

Commander

Steve Lindsey

Pilot

Eric Boe 

Mission 

Specialist

Alvin Drew

Mission 

Specialist

Nicole Stott 

Mission 

Specialist

Michael Barratt 

Mission 

Specialist

Steve Bowen

Robonaut 2

(R2)

www.nasa.gov

SP-2010-9-182-KSC
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

t1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145728

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145728

COA: 310817

Lenawee CC: 11

- 015634

- FH

CHARLES PAUL MILLER, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

Board of Directors and Stockholders
FC Banc Corp.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of FC Banc Corp.
(the "Company") and subsidiary as of June 30, 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive income for the three-month and six-month
periods ended June 30, 2002 and the consolidated statements of shareholders
equity and cash flows for the six-month period ended June 30, 2002. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated January 18, 2002, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.


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


Wexford, PA
August 6, 2002
#### Vinod Kumar et al., Appellants, v Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[788 NYS2d 408]

*494In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated March 26, 2003, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to a prior determination of the same court dated November 15, 2002, denying their motion to vacate an order of the same court dated June 5, 2002, which granted the unopposed motions of the defendants Grace Industries, Inc., El Sol Contracting & Construction Corporation, doing business as Grace Industries, Inc./El Sol Contracting & Construction Corporation, a joint venture, and the defendant Rice Mohawk U.S. Construction Co., Ltd., to preclude them from offering evidence at trial, and granted the unopposed motion of the defendant Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc., to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim or defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Svendsen v Professional Bus. Sys.,*12 AD3d 588 [2004]; *Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*10 AD3d 393 [2004]); the movant must submit supporting facts in evidentiary form *(see Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky,*283 AD2d 553 [2001]). Upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its prior determination denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an order granting two motions to preclude the plaintiffs from submitting evidence at trial and granting another motion to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against one defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to comply with court-ordered discovery. The plaintiffs still failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in complying with court-ordered discovery requests *(see MRI Enters. v Amanat,*263 AD2d 530 [1999]) and also failed to proffer evidentiary facts demonstrating in an affidavit of merit a connection between the defendants’ alleged negligence and the damages they sustained *(see Stewart v Tapps Supermarket,*289 AD2d 561 [2001]; *Vargas v Flatbush Pest Control,*178 AD2d 528 [1991]; *Crystal v General Motors Corp.,*157 AD2d 821 [1990]).

We do not consider issues raised in connection with an order dated February 26, 2003, as the plaintiffs did not file a notice of *495appeal from that order. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS CASE NO. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL 2641

_______________________________________ 

This Document Relates to Plaintiff,

Rodney Sutton

Case No. 2:17-cv-02208-DGC

_______________________________________ 

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW attorney, Brian S. Katz, of the Flint Law Firm, LLC, and enters his 

appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff(s) in the above referenced action. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FLINT LAW FIRM LLC 

/s/ Brian S. Katz

Brian S. Katz, KY Bar No. 86633 

FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 

2226 Broadway, Suite 1 

Post Office Box 2903 

Paducah, Kentucky 42002-2903 

Phone: (270) 575-3939 

Fax: (270) 575-3936 

bkatz@flintfirm.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8367 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM ANTHONY ROBERSON, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00314-FL-1; 5:09-cv-00104-FL) 

Submitted: July 20, 2012 Decided: July 25, 2012

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

William Anthony Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, 

Ethan A. Ontjes, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

William Anthony Roberson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Roberson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 11
                              HMN FINANCIAL, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
   
                                                                                  Year Ended December 31,          
                                                                       --------------------------------------------
Computation of Earnings Per Common Share:                                 1998             1997            1996    
                                                                       --------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                    <C>               <C>            <C>      
Weighted average number of common shares out-
 standing used in basic earnings per common
 share calculation............................................          4,923,392        5,525,033      6,473,115

Net dilutive effect of:
 Options......................................................            323,593          314,082         82,257
 Restricted stock awards......................................             51,141           76,151        100,505
                                                                       ----------        -----------    ----------


Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 adjusted for effect of dilutive securities ..................          5,298,126        5,915,266      6,655,877
                                                                       ----------        -----------    ----------
                                                                       ----------        -----------    ----------


Income available to common shareholders .....................         $ 4,057,680        5,578,866      4,274,349

Basic earnings per common share...............................        $      0.82             1.01           0.66

Diluted earnings per common share.............................        $      0.77             0.94           0.64
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
31.1
 
 Certifications
 
 I, Jay
Patel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Senticore, Inc.
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, the 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 annual report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report ("Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c)
presented in this annual report are our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls (all of which do not apply);
and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls, (all of which do
not apply); and
 
 6. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date:
April 15, 2005
 
 
 
 /s/ Jay
Patel
 _____________________
 Jay Patel
 Chief
Executive Officer
#### A. Melcher et al. *v*Obst & Rupert.

Street Improvements — Contract With City — ¡Ordinance—Grading and Paving District from’Curbing.

Curbing is not included in an ordianee directing a street to be graded and paved and the mayor has no fight to put it under contract and charge the cost to adjoining land-owners.

APPEAL FROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 27, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

It appears from the record of Obst & Rupert against Sweeney, etc., which by the peladings is made an exhibit, that real estate in the city of Louisville belonging to appellants was sold by virtue of a judgment pronounced in said case against them for improvements made under an ordinance of the City Council on an alley in front of said property; this action is now brought against appellees, one of whom was the purchaser, to set aside said judgment and sale, and the chancellor, having refused relief to the full extent it was sought, appellants have brought the case to this court.

By the terms of the ordinance, the alley was to be *“graded and paved ”*but the Mayor of the city entered into a contract with appellee Obst, by which he undertook to grade said alley, and to pave it, for certain stipulated prices, and to curb it at 56 cents per running foot from the curbing, whereby the cost of the improvement was very greatly increased, and the ordinance conferred no power or authority on the engineer to let, nor on the Mayor to contract for any curbing on said alley.

As was said in the case of Sweeney & McNeigh v. Obst & Rupert, curbing is not necessarily included in an ordinance for grading and paving, and unless there be sidewalks, it would be proper, and most probable curbing would be provided for in the ordinance; but, however this may be, curbing is as distinct from *75grading and paving as these are from each other, and unless the ordinance authorized the curbing, the engineer had no power to put it under contract; and if he does so, and the Council approves and affirms it, and it is by the Mayor stipulated for, and the work is performed, the city, and not the owners of the property fronting the improvement, must pay for it.

Wherefore, the judgment of the chancellor is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to set aside the judgment against appellants, under which the real estate described in the pleadings was sold, and to set aside the sale, and that appellee Rupert be ordered to return the money paid to him by appellant, Mrs. C. Melcher, as evidenced by the two receipts, one dated August 2, 1866, and the other September 8, 1866, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dede Dinius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/darin-l-diniusnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Instruments Will Listen for Supersonic X-59\u2019s Quiet \u2018Thump\u2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RhRwysnf66\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-instruments-will-listen-for-supersonic-x-59s-quiet-thump\/\">NASA Instruments Will Listen for Supersonic X-59\u2019s Quiet \u2018Thump\u2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-instruments-will-listen-for-supersonic-x-59s-quiet-thump\/embed\/#?secret=RhRwysnf66\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Instruments Will Listen for Supersonic X-59\u2019s Quiet \u2018Thump\u2019” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RhRwysnf66\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/AFRC2024-0008-008\/AFRC2024-0008-008~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JERRY JEFFERSON MORGAN.

June 19, 1984.

Certification is granted, and the judgment of the Appellate Division is summarily reversed and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in light of *State v. Roth,*95 *N.J.*334 (1984) and *State v. Hodge,*95 *N.J*369 (1984).