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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Robert E. Drury, certify that: 

 

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of eMergeInteractive, Inc.; 

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, thisannual 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 theperiod covered by this report; 

 

3.   Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

 

4.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer 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 andprocedures, 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b.   (paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986); 

 

c.   evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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

 

d.   disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 the registrant’sboard 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 abilityto 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.
CNO 06.30.2015 EX 10.1






Exhibit 10.1
        


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered effective the 30th day of July, 2015, between CNO Services, LLC (the “Company”) and Bruce Baude (“Executive”).


Recitals


A.The Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of January 6, 2015 (the “Agreement”).


B.The Company and Executive desire to further amend the Agreement to extend its Term (as defined in the Agreement) and to make the other changes set forth herein. 
    
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged:


		
	1.
	Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended solely to change the ending date of the Term from July 31, 2015 to July 31, 2018.  All other provisions of Section 2 of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.  




		
	2.
	The third sentence of Section 5(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended solely to change “2015 bonus” to “2018 bonus.”  All other provisions of Section 5(b) of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.




		
	3.
	All provisions of the Agreement not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.


    
	
		
	CNO SERVICES, LLC

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Edward J. Bonach

	 
	Edward J. Bonach, President

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Bruce Baude

	 
	Bruce Baude
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RONKEVIS WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D2022-2873 and 4D2022-3329

[January 17, 2024]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; L.T. Case Nos.

15-014714CF10A, 16-009881CF10A, and 16-011799CF10A. 

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Virginia Jane Murphy, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anesha Worthy, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, West Palm Beach for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the order revoking his probation in three cases, 

arguing the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order specifying 

the conditions of probation he violated. See King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 

1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, 

the court is required to render a written order noting the specific 

conditions of probation that were violated.”). The state agrees reversal and 

remand is warranted. See Wright v. State, 958 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2007); Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an amended 

revocation order listing the specific conditions of probation violated. 

Appellant’s presence is not required for entry of this amended revocation 

order. Smith v. State, 186 So. 3d 596, 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

KLINGENSMITH, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
2

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF SYCAMORE NETWORKS, INC.**

 

Sycamore Networks Asia Inc. 

Delaware

 

Sycamore Networks Europe Inc. 

Delaware 

 

Sycamore Networks Americas Inc. 

Delaware 

 

Sycamore Securities Corporation 

Massachusetts

 

Sirocco Systems, Inc. 

Delaware 

 

Sycamore Networks de Mexico, S.A. 

Mexico 

 

Sycamore Networks International BV 

Amsterdam,The Netherlands 

 

Sycamore Networks Japan K.K. 

Japan 

 

Sycamore Networks Sweden AB 

Sweden
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:  August                2, 2007 | /s/  Paul                A.                Farr                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           | Paul                A. FarrExecutive                Vice PresidentPPL                Energy Supply, LLC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00065]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2014-30815) published on 
pages 226 and 227 of the issue for Monday, January 5, 2015.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston heading, the entry for New 
Hampshire Mutual Bancorp, Manchester, New Hampshire, is revised to read 
as follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:
    1. New Hampshire Mutual Bancorp, Manchester, New Hampshire; to 
establish MillRiver Trust Company, and transfer the existing trust 
business from New Hampshire Mutual Bancorp's subsidiary bank, Merrimack 
County Savings Bank, both in Concord, New Hampshire, to MillRiver Trust 
Company, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(6)(ii), 
(b)(6)(v), (b)(6)(vi), (b)(7)(i), (b)(7)(ii) and (b)(11)(iii)(A).
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 30, 
2014.
    Comments on this application must be received by January 20, 2015.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 5 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-00065 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### In the Matter of Nyrie W. and Others, Children Alleged to be Abused and/or Neglected. Paul M., Appellant; Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 70]

Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent father had sexually abused his daughter Nyrie W, derivatively abused his daughter Porscha M., and derivatively neglected his sons Damar M., Dmitri M. and Donovan M., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court’s finding that the father had sexually abused his daughter Nyrie was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [e] [iii]; 1046 [b] [i]). Nyrie’s *403out-of-court statements to caseworkers that her father had raped her on five occasions were corroborated by North Central Bronx Hospital’s records *(see*§ 1046 [a] [vi]). Those records were properly certified and contained the requisite delegation of authority *(see*§ 1046 [a] [iv]). Nyrie also made statements to caseworkers that her father would enter the bathroom while she was showering and tell her she had to wash her private parts only. Her statements were adequately corroborated by the statements her siblings made to the caseworkers *(see Matter of Tiara G. [Cheryl R.J,*102 AD3d 611, 612 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 855 [2013]).

The derivative findings of abuse of Porscha and neglect of Damar, Dmitri and Donovan were also supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]). The evidence of the father’s multiple rapes of Nyrie “demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [his] care” *(Matter of Vincent M.,*193 AD2d 398, 404 [1st Dept 1993]). The derivative findings of abuse and neglect were further supported by evidence that some of the children were in the father’s apartment while he raped Nyrie *(see Matter of Brandon M. [Luis M.],*94 AD3d 520, 520-521 [1st Dept 2012]).

We reject the father’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. His counsel’s failure to object to the admissibility of medical records from Jacobi Medical Center did not prejudice him, as those records were not necessary to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had abused Nyrie *(cf. Matter of Cassandra Tammy S. [Babbah S.],*89 AD3d 540, 541 [1st Dept 2011]; *Matter of Chaquill R., 55*AD3d 975, 977 [3d Dept 2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 715 [2009]).

We have considered the father’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
#### Robert A. Desautels, Respondent, v Lillian T. Desau-tels, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 687]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nolan Jr., J.), entered June 6, 2007 in Saratoga County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed, upon the opinion of Justice Thomas D. Nolan Jr.

Peters, J.P, Spain, Lahtinen, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer


I, Javad K. Hassan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AM Communications,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are 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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report 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; and


<PAGE>

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not 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.



Dated: November 18, 2002


By: /s/ Javad K. Hassan
    -------------------------------------
    Javad K. Hassan
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 9, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ Nos. 3D21-0247 & 3D21-0282 Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-0224 AP, 18-11106 SP, 20-0246 AP, 18-11112 SP

________________ 

### All Insurance Restoration Services, Inc., a/a/o Cindy Arnaes Rojas ,

Appellant,
vs. 

### Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ,

Appellee.
Appeals from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence D. King and Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer, Judges. Giasi Law P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi, and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for appellant. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and David C. Borucke (Tampa), for appellee. Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
#### Manohar BISTA, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-60003.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 2, 2008.

Anthony Osei, Law Office of Osei & Fordjour, Arlington, TX, for Petitioner.

Linda Susan Wendtland, Joseph D. Hardy, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Kristi Barrows, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs, Enforcement Field Office Director, Carl Perry, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

*753PER CURIAM: *

Manohar Bista, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions this court to review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Bis-ta’s asylum application as time-barred, and finding Bista ineligible for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. Bista challenges only the determination that he is ineligible for withholding of removal. *See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS,*809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986). Bista maintains: the BIA’s and IJ’s rejection of his claim-that, if he returned to Nepal, he had a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinions—was not supported by substantial evidence; the Maoists are known generally for “dealing harshly” with individuals who publish critical articles; the Maoists have persecuted his family members because of Bista’s political opinions; and the IJ focused incorrectly on Bista’s family’s lack of problems to support finding Bista failed to show the requisite clear probability of future persecution.

Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings, except to find that Bista had published articles since the initiation of removal proceedings, we review the decision of the IJ. *See Ahmed v. Gonzales,*447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006). Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Bista failed to show a clear probability of future persecution if he returned to Nepal. *See Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir.2004); *Ozdemir v. INS,*46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994).

Bista also seeks to have this court take judicial notice of the current political situation in Nepal, as documented in a series of internet articles listed by Bista. The means for seeking further fact-finding is through a motion to reopen. *See Ali v. Gonzales,*440 F.3d 678, 680 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2006).

Because Bista has failed to establish a clear probability of persecution upon return to Nepal, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Bista’s fear of persecution is well-founded. *See Roy,*389 F.3d at 138. Accordingly, the conclusion of the BIA is substantially reasonable. *See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,*78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996).

DENIED.

*

 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.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________
No

. 201 800121

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.


### ALEXANDER J. CROYLE Aviation Electronics Technician Airman (E

- 3 ) , U .S. Navy Appellant

________

_________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander Jason L. Jones, JAGC, USN. Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Southeast, Naval

Air Station, Jacksonville, FL

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recom mendation: Commander George W. Lucier, JAGC, USN. For Appellant : Lieutenant Colonel Lee C. Kindlon, USMC R.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 30 July 2018

_________________________ Before W OODARD
, H UTCHISON
, and S TEPHENS
, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). The supplemental court

- martial order will reflect that the military judge awarded the appellant 100 days of confinement credit for a violation of Article 13, UCMJ.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL
Clerk of Court