alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Karl Brenza, Chief Financial Officer of enherent Corp., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of enherent Corp.;

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) 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

c) 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 officer(s) 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
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Karl Brenza        
|Karl Brenza            
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|November 9, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       234,901
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       378,601
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    13,673,261
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      13,800,000
<LOANS>                                   27,415,401
<ALLOWANCE>                                   48,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            46,226,473
<DEPOSITS>                                34,663,078
<SHORT-TERM>                                 500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          184,029
<LONG-TERM>                                5,937,779
<COMMON>                                       3,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                 4,938,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            46,226,473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            1,538,213
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             87,076
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             702,332
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           2,327,621
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         1,273,246
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,529,851
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        797,770
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  7,887
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              888,141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               44,472
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    28,972
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  28,972
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  2.28
<LOANS-NON>                                   44,165
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              46,735
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      0
<RECOVERIES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             48,735
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          48,735
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05308-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Myers, Appellant.

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered April 15, 1988, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

At about 10:15 p.m. on November 17, 1987 in the City of Elmira, Chemung County, Chester Fox was the victim of a robbery when his wallet was forcibly stolen from his person during a struggle in which he sustained a broken wrist and a broken finger. He identified defendant as his assailant following the apprehension of defendant by police officers a few *821minutes after the robbery and within a block of the scene of the crime. On this appeal following his conviction of robbery in the first and second degrees, defendant contends that the procedures used in the process of his identification as the perpetrator of the crime were unduly suggestive to the extent that they violated his due process rights and, in any event, the identification evidence before the jury at his trial was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction.

We conclude that the identification testimony, both in court and pretrial, was properly received in evidence. The original identification of defendant was made by Fox, the victim of the crime, a few minutes after it occurred and within a block of the scene of its commission. Accordingly, the fact that defendant was in the physical custody of police officers on the street at the time does not result in any constitutional infirmity in the identification process, for such circumstances present an exception to proscribed showup identifications *(see, People v Riley,*70 NY2d 523, 529; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023, 1024-1025; *People v Brnja,*50 NY2d 366, 372). Moreover, there is ample evidence to provide an independent basis for Fox’s identification of defendant. Fox observed defendant at, and as he followed him from, a newsstand prior to reaching the scene of the crime where defendant asked Fox for a light and borrowed his cigarette lighter. Fox observed defendant’s face as he used the lighter, and moments later had a face-to-face confrontation with him during the commission of the robbery and in the ensuing struggle *(see, People v Whisby,*48 NY2d 834, 836).

Finally, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find legally sufficient evidence to establish every element of the crimes charged and defendant’s commission of them *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932). The jury could have reasonably concluded that the knife recovered adjacent to the scene of the crime was the one possessed by defendant at the time of the robbery and the one observed by Fox, and that the money found in defendant’s possession represented the fruits of the robbery of Fox.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 15 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 15 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 2 of 2
Clear All

        22 September 2022    

                    UNITAS Concludes After Successful Exercise                 
                RIO DE JANEIRO - UNITAS LXIII (63), the world’s longest-running multinational maritime exercise concluded with a closing ceremony in Rio De Janeiro, Sept. 22, 2022.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
(85 South. 288)

#### WOOTEN et al. v. VAUGHN.

(7 Div. 57.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 22, 1920.)

Mortgages &wkey;602 — Mortgagee properly required to account for rent on redemption.

In an action by a mortgagor against his mortgagee, from whom he purchased the land, to redeem on sale of the land on foreclosure by a former mortgagee of a tract including the land in suit, being bought at the foreclosure sale by the plaintiff’s mortgagee, *held,*that the court properly required mortgagee to account for the rent for the tract that plaintiff purchased from him.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; TV. W. Haralson, Judge.

Bill to redeem by W. W. Vaughn against S. E. Wooten and others. From the decree rendered, respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

J. T. Vaughn, brother of W. W. Vaughn, owned 80 acres of land, which was covered by a $500 mortgage to Mrs. Mitchell. Under an agreement he was to sell the land for $1,000, the purchaser to pay half cash and to assume the mortgage. Wooten purchased the west 40, agreeing to pay $600 for it, and W. W. Vaughn purchased the east 40, but paid no money therefor. Wooten contends that it was agreed that he buy the land, pay his $500, assume the Mitchell mortgage, and sell to W. W. Vaughn the east 40, but that the deeds were made in his absence by J. T. Vaughn, conveying to Wooten the west 40 and to W. W. Vaughn the east 40. W. W. Vaughn afterwards executed to Wooten a mortgage on the east 40 for $400; it being agreed that the west 40 was worth $600 and the east 40 $400. The west 40 was in the possession of one Wigley under a contract of rental for three bales of seed cotton. W. W. Vaughn failed to pay his mortgage to Wooten, and in December of that year Mrs. Mitchell foreclosed her mortgage on the entire 80, and Wooten became the purchaser of the same.

For further facts, see former report of this case in 202 Ala. 684, 81 South. 660.

Isbell, Scott & Downer, of Ft. Payne, for appellants.

Counsel insist that the evidence is different from that presented1 on former appeal, and that therefore the court erred in following the same, but they cite no authorities. They insist that the appellant should not have been taxed with the costs. 2 Port. 414; 59 Ala. 535.

A. E. Hawkins and J. A. Johnson, both of Ft. Payne, for appellee.

This cause should be affirmed, on the authority of the former appeal, reported in 81 South. 660.

ANDERSON, C. J.

This is the second appeal in this case, and the legal questions were considered and settled upon the former appeal, and the present decree seems to have been in conformity therewith. 202 Ala. 684, 81 South. 660.

It is chiefly urged upon the present appeal that the trial court erred in requiring the appellant Wooten to account for the rent for the appellee’s 40 acres for the year 1916, and in taxing the said appellant with the costs. We think that the evidence fully justified the action of the trial court in this respect, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAYRE, GARDNER, and BROWN, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 4 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 5 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 6 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 7 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 8 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 9 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 10 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 11 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 12 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 13 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 14 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 15 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 16 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 17 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 18 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 19 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 20 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 21 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 22 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 23 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 24 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 25 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 26 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 27 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 28 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 29 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 30 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 31 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 32 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 33 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 34 of 35Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 35 of 35
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Cooper, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered September 30, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of four counts of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Upon review of the record, we concur with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues to be raised on the present appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction and grant counsel’s application for leave to withdraw *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Crawley,*130 AD2d 879; *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, *lv denied*67 NY2d 650).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01669-AKH Document 16 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01669-AKH Document 16 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01669-AKH Document 16 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### Rita Meisl, Respondent, v Robert Meisl, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ambrosio, J.), entered May 13, 1987, *840and made, *inter alia,*upon an order of the same court (Zelman, J.), dated April 10, 1987, denying his motion to vacate his default in appearing and answering, as awarded the plaintiff wife maintenance in the sum of $100 per week and title to the former marital residence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ambrosio, J.), to report on the factors considered in the equitable distribution and maintenance determination in compliance with the provisions of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g) and (6) (b), and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court shall file its findings with this court within 30 days of the date of this decision and order.

The defendant herein failed to present either a reasonable excuse for his failure to answer or a meritorious defense to the action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly refused to vacate so much of the judgment as granted the plaintiff a divorce *(see, Trippe v Trippe,*113 AD2d 935; *Lins v Lins,*98 AD2d 608; *Glantz v Glantz,*95 AD2d 796; *Gorman v Gorman,*92 AD2d 709, 710; *cf., Junowicz v Junowicz,*132 AD2d 527).

With regard to the provisions for equitable distribution and maintenance, we have held today in *Otto v Otto*(150 AD2d 57 [decided herewith]) that an inquest should be taken on the economic issues. We further held in *Otto (supra,*at 68) that "[t]he inquest may be in the nature of a hearing or, in the alternative, may be by way of the submission of written proof through the use of affidavits and other documentary evidence sufficient to provide the requisite evidentiary and factual basis required for the Judge to make the appropriate findings pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B)”.

A review of the record in this case reveals that the plaintiff has submitted a detailed affidavit with annexed documentary evidence which is "sufficient to provide the requisite evidentiary and factual basis” for the court to make the appropriate findings. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is not required.

However, as we have repeatedly stated, the court must set forth the statutory factors considered in distributing the parties’ martial property (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]) and in awarding maintenance (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; *see, Hornbeck v Hornbeck,*104 AD2d 791; *Gainer v Gainer,*100 AD2d 533). The fact that the judgment was entered after a default in answering does not obviate the court’s obligation to set forth the statutory factors which are imposed by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) *(see, Otto v Otto,*150 AD2d 57, *supra; Ettinger v Ettinger,*107 Misc 2d 675).

*841Accordingly, this matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further findings in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Domestic Relations Law, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH     Document 44      Filed 10/30/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH     Document 44      Filed 10/30/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie J. Williams, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered February 16, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is held in abeyance, Elaine D. McKnight is relieved as attorney for the defendant, the brief filed by her is deemed stricken, Samuel Bernstein, of 616 East 18th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y., 11226, is hereby substituted as the defendant’s counsel and is directed to serve and file a brief in accordance herewith on or before December 2, 1987, and the respondent shall serve and file a supplemental brief on or before December 16, 1987.

While the defendant apparently wished to challenge the denial of a suppression motion without a hearing, assigned counsel submitted a brief on behalf of the defendant in which she stated that the only meritorious issue was the insufficiency of the defendant’s plea allocution and that no other meritorious issues could be raised on the appeal. As the Court of Appeals noted in its recent decision in *People v Vasquez*(70 NY2d 1, 4, *rearg denied*70 NY2d 748), counsel thereby disparaged a claim that her client wanted addressed and "for all practical purposes, precluded [her] client [if he was so advised] from presenting [it] effectively in a *pro se*brief’. Accordingly, new counsel must be assigned and consideration of the appeal *873deferred until the filing of further briefs *(see, People v Jimenez,*133 AD2d 350). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 12 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-214143) and Amendment No. 721 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible
      payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 3, 2019
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 29, 2020

t0420

Order 

Clerk

April 29, 2020

158583

DARLENE SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158583

COA: 337826

Oakland CC: 2016-152060-NM

HERTZ SCHRAM, PC and LISA STERN,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2018 

judgment 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.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF THE CEO AND CFO 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 Aperture Health, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis X. Pisano
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




3.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




4.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of the
    Company.







Date:
      October 13, 2008
            By:
      /s/ Francis X. Pisano

              Francis
      X. Pisano, Principal Financial
Officer