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

 

**SECTION302 CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, James C. Minerly, Chairman,Senior Financial Officer of enherent Corp., certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K/A of enherent Corp.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)              all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| /s/ James C.  Minerly     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |
| James C.  Minerly         |
| Senior  Financial Officer |
| April 14,  2004           |

 

----
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the cita tion of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 31,367 4 MARVIN ELLIS, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Neil C. Candelaria, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 Francine A. Chavez, Assistant Attorney General 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Marvin Ellis, Pro Se 14 Santa Rosa, NM 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 FRY, Judge. 182 Defendant appeals pro se from the dist rict court’s order denying Defendant’s 1 motion for an order requiring the return of currency taken at th e time Defendant was 2 arrested on multiple counts of fraud, racket eering, and embezzlement. [RP 227 (This 3 appeal concerns four district court cases that were consolidated on April 1, 2009, 4 citation is to the record proper in CR-07- 01759)] We proposed to reverse in a notice 5 of proposed summary disposition. The State has filed a timely notice stating that it 6 will not file a memorandum in oppos ition to our notice of proposed summary 7 disposition, and Defendant has filed a memorandum in support. 8 Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary 9 disposition, we reverse the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for an 10 order requiring the return of $1,700 in cu rrency and Defendant’s wallet which were 11 taken from him at the time of his arrest. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

17 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 183 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2
Exhibit 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT






Board of Directors
Radica Games Limited


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
33-86960,  333-07000,  333-59737  and  333-61260 on Form S-8,  and  Registration
Statement  Nos.  333-07526  and 333-79005 on Form F-3 of Radica Games Limited of
our report dated  February 12, 2001 (April 11, 2003 as to the last  paragraph of
Note 5),  relating to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of Radica  Games
Limited and its  subsidiaries  as of and for the year ended  December  31, 2000,
appearing  in this Annual  Report on Form 20-F of Radica  Games  Limited for the
year ended December 31, 2002.







/S/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

HONG KONG

April 15, 2003
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40146

Conference Calendar

JORGE ORTIZ SALAZAR

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CV-195

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Ortiz Salazar, federal prisoner # 42899-018, pleaded guilty in 2005

in the Middle District of Florida to possession of five kilograms or more of

cocaine with intent to distribute while aboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction

and was sentenced to 135 months in prison. He did not appeal, and he

unsuccessfully sought relief via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He now appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Finding no error, we

affirm.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40146

2

The primary vehicle for challenging federal custody is a motion under

§ 2255. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). A § 2241 petition

that attacks custody resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be

entertained under the “savings clause” of § 2255(e) if the petitioner establishes

that the remedy provided under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the

legality of his detention. Id. at 878. Under our savings clause test, Salazar must

present a claim “(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court

decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent

offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim

should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Salazar’s arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the sentencing court and

his innocence of the offense do not satisfy the savings clause as they are not

based on a retroactive Supreme Court decision demonstrating that he was

convicted for conduct that did not constitute a crime. See Jeffers v. Chandler,

253 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.
# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/247Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/247 of 10 February 2015 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of            the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN/1/2015)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/247                     

# of 10 February 2015

# on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN/1/2015)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010 on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL                           AFGHANISTAN)(1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance                              with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control                              and strategic direction of the EUPOL AFGHANISTAN mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)On 17 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/922/CFSP(2) extending the duration of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 December 2016.

(3)The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Ms Pia STJERNVALL                              as Head of Mission of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, from 16 February 2015 until 31 December 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Ms Pia STJERNVALL is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN as from 16 February 2015 until 31 December 2015.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 10 February 2015.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 123, 19.5.2010, p. 4.                           

2

Council Decision 2014/922/CFSP of 17 December 2014 amending and extending Decision 2010/279/CFSP on the European Union Police                              Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (OJ L 363, 18.12.2014, p. 152).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136031 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136031 

 COA: 281702 

Wayne CC: 01-001619-01

FRANK PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE v. Samson PRUITT.

No. 370P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of August 2008 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
VESTAL v. CAPITAL MARBLE CREATIONS, INC.

No. COA08-739.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (06CVD14269).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00201-CV

NO. 03-08-00202-CV

Reliant American Group, Inc. and Joseph D. Macchia, Appellants

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GV-50016, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants Reliant American Group, Inc., and Joseph D. Macchia have filed motions

to dismiss these appeals, stating that the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise

their differences and that these motions are made subject to that agreement. Appellantsfurther state

that the requested dismissal will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would

otherwise be entitled. We grant appellants’ motions and dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a)(1).

____________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: August 29, 2008
STATE v. Aaron PITTMAN.

No. 175P12-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 1, 2015.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Raleigh, for Pittman, Aaron.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Samuel B. Currin, III, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of September 2015 by State of NC for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of October 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial  Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.

# DATES:

October 24-25, 2005.

# TIME:

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Vintners Inn, 4350 Barnes Road, Santa Rosa, California.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: September 2, 2005.

John K. Rabiej,

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. 05-18063  Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
# CE2004070EN.01003401.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/34

---

(2004/C 70 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1236/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Sale of PCs with preinstalled operating system

Subject:

As numerous complaints from users testify, the great majority of PCs are now sold with the MS Windows operating system preinstalled. That trading practice has reached the point where PCs with no operating system preinstalled are virtually unobtainable without extra charge. Customers for such a machine not only frequently have to pay for an operating system they don't want, they are also expected to pay extra to have it removed from the PC they want to buy. There can be little doubt that this amounts to an irregularity on the internal market. These practices would appear to constitute a form of tied sales, not least because consumers cannot, for example, freely chose a different operating system without incurring extra costs.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs?

Does it consider this manner of trading as complying with Community law in force?

What action will it take to put a stop to these practices and again allow consumers a free choice?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

(22 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties encountered by consumers in obtaining a personal computer (PC) from PC vendors without an operating system pre-installed. The Commission understands that Microsoft's licensing agreements with PC manufacturers require the pre-installation on PCs of an operating system, although this does not have to be a Microsoft operating system. The Commission intends to examine this question in greater detail once its ongoing Microsoft investigation has concluded.

---
EXHIBIT 31.4

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Alfred J. Dilmore, certify that:

 

1.        I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAIT Financial Trust;

 

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.

 

Date:        April 30, 2019

 

|        |        |                                                                                                       |        |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/ Alfred J. Dilmore                                                                                 |   |
|   |   | Name:  Alfred J. Dilmore.                                                                   |   |
|   |   | Title:    Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and                                  |
|   |   | Chief Accounting Officer                                                                    |   |
|   |   |             (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
# CE2004070EN.01017901.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/179 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/179

---

(2004/C 70 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2963/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Spending cuts on accident research and prevention

Subject:

In a letter to the Commission's Health Directorate, the European Accident Prevention Network expresses concern at a 30 % cut in funding for accident research and prevention. According to the Public Health and Epidemiology laboratory, EUR 1,7 to 1,8 million is being earmarked annually for the accident prevention programme over the next five years compared with EUR 2,5 million annually for the previous period, despite an overall increase in the Community public health budget.

Given that in the industrialised countries, accidents are the prime cause of death among productive workers in the under-45 age group and that overall life expectancy is affected more by fatal accident statistics than by other factors (such as cardiovascular disorders or tumours) and in view of the high social and economic cost of serious injury for the Community as a whole:

| 1. | What were the reasons for these drastic cuts in funding? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What were the reasons for these drastic cuts in funding?

| 2. | Will the Commission act — and if so how — to ensure that research into accident prevention is stepped up? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission act — and if so how — to ensure that research into accident prevention is stepped up?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

(14 November 2003)

The Commission did not recently cut the appropriations allocated to research into and prevention of accidents in the Union by 30 %.

The proposals for financial support regarding accident and injury prevention received in the framework of the 2003 funding round of the Community public health programme are currently being evaluated. A decision on selection of projects to be financed is expected shortly. Several projects dealing with accidents and injuries have been presented in the selection process.

---
The STATE of North Carolina v. Fred Bobo McCURRY, III, Defendant.

No. COA15-271.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135380(23) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices JOHN MICHAEL McLEOD,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 135380 

 COA: 280282 

Ct of Claims: 07-000034-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 24, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk