alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      12.2




CERTIFICATIONS




I,
      Dafna
      Gruber, certify that:




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




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




3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this 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 report;




4.
      The
      company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:




a.
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the company, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b.
      Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      report based on such evaluation; and




c.
      Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      company’s internal control over financial reporting, and




5.
      The
      company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of
      company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      function):




a.
      All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the company’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 company’s internal controls over financial
      reporting.




Date:
                May 11,
                2006By:
              /s/ Dafna
                GruberDafna
                Gruber
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 696 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 696

       To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restrict the 
 disqualification of students for drug offenses to those students who 
       committed offenses while receiving student financial aid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2003

Mr. Meeks of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restrict the 
 disqualification of students for drug offenses to those students who 
       committed offenses while receiving student financial aid.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Responsible Student Financial 
Assistance Assurance Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF DISQUALIFICATION.

     Section 484(r)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1091(r)(1)) is amended by striking everything preceding the table and 
inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--A student who is convicted of any 
        offense under any Federal or State law involving the possession 
        or sale or a controlled substance for conduct that occurred 
        during a period of enrollment for which the student was 
        receiving any grant, loan, or work assistance under this title 
        shall not be eligible to receive such grant, loan, or work 
        assistance from the date of that conviction for the period of 
        time specified in the following table:''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 15

                   INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' AWARENESS LETTER





Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Sirs:

We are aware that Solo Serve Corporation has included our report dated December
17, 1996 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing Standards
No. 71) by reference in the prospectus constituting part of its Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-55490) filed on December 8, 1992, and on Forms
S-8 (Nos. 33-99666 and 33- 99670) filed on November 20, 1995.  We are also
aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.

Yours very truly,



PRICE WATERHOUSE  LLP

San Antonio, Texas
December 17, 1996




                                      19
ENVIROSOURCE, INC.
                              List of Subsidiaries
                               As of March 1, 1999
                               -------------------

                                                   State or other  % of voting
                                                   jurisdiction    securities
                                                   in which        owned by
Name of Company                                    organized       immed. parent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Envirosource, Inc.                                   Delaware
  EnviroSource Corp.                                 Wyoming               100
  Envirosource Management Corp.                      Delaware              100
  IU International Corporation                       Delaware              100
    Envirosource Technologies, Inc.                  Delaware              100
      ETDS, Inc.                                     Delaware              100
        Conversion Systems, Inc.                     Delaware              100
        Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc.           Delaware              100
        Envirosafe Services of North America, Inc.   Delaware              100
        Envirosafe Services of Ohio, Inc.            Ohio                  100
        Envirosafe Services of Texas, Inc.           Delaware              100
        Marcus Hook Processing, Inc.                 Delaware              100
    International Mill Service, Inc.                 Pennsylvania          100
      IMS Funding Corporation                        Delaware              100
      IMS Steel Services, Inc.                       Pennsylvania          100
      IMS Waylite, Inc.                              Pennsylvania          100
      International Mill Service Limited             Canada                100
      McGraw Construction Company, Inc.              Ohio                  100
      Neoax Investment Corp.                         Delaware               56*
    IU North America Finance, Inc.                   Delaware              100
    IU North America, Inc.                           Delaware              100
      Nosroc Corp.                                   Pennsylvania          100
        Soncor Corp.                                 Delaware              100



--------
* 44% is owned by IU International Corporation and 56% is owned by International
  Mill Service, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 187 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 187

 Congratulating the University of Connecticut Huskies for winning the 
   2003 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I women's 
                        basketball championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2003

   Mr. Simmons (for himself, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Shays, Mrs. Johnson of 
  Connecticut, and Mr. Larson of Connecticut) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Congratulating the University of Connecticut Huskies for winning the 
   2003 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I women's 
                        basketball championship.

Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team won its 
        third National Collegiate Athletic Association championship in 4 years 
        by defeating the University of Tennessee by the score of 73-68;
Whereas, after losing 4 All-American players to graduation, the Huskies were 
        still able to finish the 2002-2003 season with a nearly perfect 37-1 
        record, becoming only the 3rd NCAA Division I women's basketball team to 
        repeat as national champions;
Whereas Diana Taurasi was chosen as the consensus national women's Player of the 
        Year and named the Final Four Most Outstanding Player;
Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies set an NCAA Division I women's 
        record by winning 70 games in a row;
Whereas University of Connecticut Huskies head coach Geno Auriemma was named 
        NCAA Division I women's basketball Coach of the Year, won his 501st game 
        and 4th National Championship;
Whereas the high caliber of the University of Connecticut Huskies in both 
        athletics and academics has significantly advanced the sport of women's 
        basketball and provided inspiration for future generations of young men 
        and women alike; and
Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies' championship season has rallied 
        Connecticut residents of all ages behind a common purpose and triggered 
        a wave of euphoria across the State: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives commends the University 
of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team for winning the 2003 
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I women's basketball 
championship and for completing the 2002-2003 season with a 37-1 
record.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mansour SALAHMAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Peggy ANTHONY; Probation & Parole District 25; Department of Community Corrections, Respondent-Appellees.

No. 12-7203.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 28, 2012.

Decided: Jan. 8, 2013.

*244Mansour Salahmand, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding . precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mansour Salahmand seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85,120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Salahmand has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Salahmand’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
July 2, 1999



Securities and Exchange Commission
Branch of Document Control
450 Fifth Street N.W.,
Washington, DC 20549

VIA EDGAR

Subject: Certification under Rule 497(j) - The AAL Mutual Funds
         File No. 33-12911, File No. 811-5075


Dear Ladies and Gentleman:

The  undersigned  hereby  certifies that the form of Prospectus and Statement of
Additional  Information  that would have been filed  pursuant to 497(c) upon the
Post-Effective  Amendment No. 32 to the Registrant's  registration  statement on
Form N1-A would not have differed from that  contained in said amendment to such
registration statement that was filed electronically on June 25, 1999.

Please direct any comments or questions  concerning this certification to Steven
J. Fredricks, Esq. at (920) 734-5721 extension 6864.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steven J. Fredricks

Steven J Fredricks
Attorney III
AAL Capital Management Corporation
# 2012

&8page &P of &N	

# 2013

# 2014

# 2015

# 2016

# 2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernesto Lopez, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 500]

The trial court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant’s request for new counsel. No further investigation was required because his conclusory assertions did not suggest a serious possibility of irreconcilable conflict with defense counsel *(see People v Stevenson,*36 AD3d 634 [2007]; *People v Moore,*228 AD2d 622 [1996]). Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the prosecutor disclosed all relevant documents pursuant to *People v Rosario*(9 NY2d 286 [1961], *cert denied*368 US 866 [1961]) and *Brady v Maryland*(373 US 83 [1963]), and defense counsel was in possession of them at trial.

The defendant was not deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The court properly excluded from the time chargeable to the People the period in which the court was reviewing the grand jury minutes *{see*CPL 30.30 [4] [a]). Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the remarks by the prosecutor had “a decided tendency to prejudice the jury” *(People v Halm,*81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 110 [1976]). Her comments, viewed in the context of the entire trial, fell within the latitude afforded to attorneys in advocating their cause *(see People v Halm,*81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 110 [1976]).

The defendant’s challenge to the procedure pursuant to which *900he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Bouyea,*64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]; *People v Sampson,*30 AD3d 623 [2006]; *People v Guzman,*23 AD3d 579, 580 [2005]). In any event, the challenge is without merit. The statutory purposes for the preliminary examination *(see*CPL 400.15 [3]) were satisfied *(cf. People v Bouyea,*64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]; *People v Sampson,*30 AD3d 623, 623-624 [2006]). The defendant was aware that the sentencing court was considering his four previous felonies and knew that he was being sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender *(see People v Sampson,*30 AD3d 623, 624 [2006]). When given an opportunity to speak at the sentencing hearing, the defendant asked the court to not consider his prior convictions with regard to his present sentence. Thus, remitting the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing “would be futile and pointless” *(People v Bouyea,*64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ, concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6845

RICO LATRELL BURNETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00177-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rico Latrell Burnett appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion 

pursuant to Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5)(A) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal 

from the order denying relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We have reviewed 

the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion for 

an extension of time. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534 

(4th Cir. 1996) (“‘Excusable neglect’ is not easily demonstrated, nor was it meant to 

be.”). We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Burnett v. Clarke, 

No. 2:16-cv-00177-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 917

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1830 South Lake Drive in Lexington, South 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Floyd Spence Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 917 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 1830 South Lake Drive in Lexington, South 

4 Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Floyd 

5 Spence Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Floyd Spence Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of WJ Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rainer N. Growitz,Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Asigned original of this written certification required by Section 1350 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| /s/ RAINER N. GROWITZ                              |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| Rainer N. Growitz                                  |
| Interim Chief  Financial Officer                   |
| Vice President of  Finance and Corporate Secretary |
| (principal financial  officer)                     |
| March 30,  2006                               |

 

----
#### Brown *v.*The State.

.Atkinson, J. — Mere preparation to commit a violent injury upon the person of another, unaccompanied by a physical effort to do so, will not justify a conviction for an assault; and therefore, where the evidence showed that during an altercation between the person alleged to have been assaulted, and two other persons acting in concert, one of the latter picked up a stone but made no attempt to cast it at the former, who was about twenty steps distant, neither of the two persons so acting in concert could be lawfully convicted of an assault.

November 12,1894.

Indictment for assault. Before Judge Reese. Hart ■superior court. March term, 1894.

Brown was convicted of an assault upon Mrs. Ginn. She testified; Brown and a negro boy Baiiey were at work in their field across the public road from my house, which road is the public road leading from Hartwell to Bowman. Bailey and my son Gordon got into a fuss out -about the lot. Gordon came in the house, and because ■of what he told me I went on the veranda and scolded the boys, who were at work over in their field. They *482both quit work and started towards where I was. I told them to stop. Brown told Bailey to *go*ahead, he would see him through. Bailey stooped and picked up something and advanced a few steps towards me. I called my husband who was at work near by, and Bailey stopped. He was on the opposite side of the road from me in the field, and about twenty steps from me when be stopped. Brown was a short distance behind him. Brown did not have anything, did not strike me nor attempt to strike me, did not throw anything at me nor attempt to throw anything at me. Bailey did not strike me nor attempt to strike me, nor throw anything at me nor attempt to do so.

*481
      *Judgment reversed,.*

*482A. Gr. McCurry, for plaintiff in error.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nyer Medical Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Sandra M. Zimmerman, Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.




/s/ Sandra M. ZimmermanName:
            Sandra
      M. ZimmermanTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




May
15, 2009