alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, N. Scott Gillis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)of First SunAmerica Life Insurance Company, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of First SunAmerica Life Insurance Company;
2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238];  (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Date:     April 15, 2005                     
/s/ N. SCOTT GILLIS
#### Irene A. Kantor, Formerly Known as Irene A. Siegel, et al., Appellants, v Joel H. Bernstein, as a Partner of Kantor, Bernstein & Kantor, et al., Respondents.

[665 NYS2d 883]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered December 9, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Uncontradicted evidence of the parties’ course of dealing and performance under the subject agreement warrants summary dismissal of the complaint premised on the claim that plaintiff Irene Kantor was a partner in defendant partnership. There is no objective evidence of a manifestation of an intent to be bound by the terms asserted by plaintiffs, but only their own self-serving assertions as to their subjective understanding and private intent *(see, Keis Distribs. v Northern Distrib. Co.,*226 AD2d 967, 969). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.
#### Denise F. Woodley, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[666 NYS2d 485]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Housing Authority appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated March 24, 1997, as denied that branch of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment which was to dismiss the first cause of action insofar as asserted against it.

*503Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment which was to dismiss the first cause of action insofar as asserted against the New York City Housing Authority is granted, and the first cause of action is dismissed against that defendant.

The plaintiff was assaulted by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of her apartment building which was owned and operated by the defendant New York City Housing Authority. Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to submit proof as to how the assailant gained access to the building, or proof that the assailant was not an invitee, she has failed to raise a factual issue as to whether the absence of operating locks on the entrance doors was a proximate cause of her injuries (see, *e.g., Shinn v Lefrak Org.,*239 AD2d 335; *Folks v New York City Hous. Auth.,*227 AD2d 520; *Perry v New York City Hous. Auth.,*222 AD2d 567; *Gleaton v New York City Hous. Auth.,*221 AD2d 504; *Jimenez v 470 Audubon Ave. Corp.,*239 AD2d 106; *Borrero v New York City Hous. Auth.,*236 AD2d 262, *lv granted*91 NY2d 801). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.
H. R. 2760 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1615 North 

Wilcox Avenue in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Johnny Grant Hollywood Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOHNNY GRANT HOLLYWOOD POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1615 North Wilcox Avenue in Los Angeles, California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Johnny Grant Hollywood Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

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

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Johnny Grant Hollywood Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GOLDEN BEAR
GOLF INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                1,002,166
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                        13,990,597
<ALLOWANCES>                          3,464,301
<INVENTORY>                              58,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     14,444,560
<PP&E>                                9,367,153
<DEPRECIATION>                       (2,691,760)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       43,803,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               (43,806,614)
<BONDS>                              (3,270,262)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                (55,050)
<OTHER-SE>                           (3,328,587)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        (43,803,339)
<SALES>                             (26,971,336)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    (33,243,162)
<CGS>                                33,009,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        44,982,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        755,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      577,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      12,494,171
<INCOME-TAX>                            285,907
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  12,780,078
<DISCONTINUED>                        4,054,754
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         16,834,832
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              3.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                              3.06
        

</TABLE>
#### Tehan’s Catalog Showrooms, Inc., Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 117360.)

(Appeal No. 1.)

[987 NYS2d 920]

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Claims (Christopher J. McCarthy, J.), entered September 6, 2012. The decision determined that claimant is entitled to an award of damages.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Pecora v Lawrence,*28 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2006]).

Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.
#### Karl Dyer, Respondent, v 930 Flushing, LLC, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 206]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 24, 2013, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) and 511 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff placed the venue of this action in Kings County based upon the alleged location of the principal office of the defendant. The defendant moved to transfer venue to Nassau County, alleging that it did not reside in Kings County at the time of the commencement of this action and that its principal office was located in Nassau County, as evidenced by a computer printout from the website of the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations.

The sole residence of a limited liability company for venue purposes is the county where its principal office is located as designated in its articles of organization *(see*CPLR 503 [c]; Limited Liability Company Law §§ 102 [s]; 203 [e] [2]; *Graziuso v 2060 Hylan Blvd. Rest. Corp.,*300 AD2d 627, 628 [2002]; *see also Milom v Marble Hall Apts., Inc.,*37 AD3d 672 [2007]; *Hamilton v Corona Ready Mix, Inc.,*21 AD3d 448, 449 [2005]). Such office need not be a place where business activities are conducted by the limited liability company *(see*Limited Liability Company Law § 102 [s]). Computer printouts are admissible as business records if the data was stored in the normal course of business *(see*CPLR 4518 [a]; State Technology Law § 302 [2]; *Ed Guth Realty v Gingold,*34 NY2d 440, 451-452 [1974]; *Education Resources Inst., Inc. v Piazza,*17 AD3d 513, 515 [2005]; *Schneider Fuel Oil v DeGennaro,*238 AD2d 495 [1997]; *Matter of Thomma,*232 AD2d 422 [1996]). However, the computer printout submitted by the defendant in support of its motion was inadmissible, since it was not certified or authenticated by the head of the New York State Department of State *(see*CPLR *7432307, 4518 [c]), and it was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient to demonstrate its admissibility as a business record *(see People v Kennedy,*68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; *Matter of Leon RR,*48 NY2d 117, 122 [1979]; *Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC,*39 AD3d 494, 495 [2007]; *Education Resources Inst., Inc. v Piazza,*17 AD3d at 515). Furthermore, the certified copy of the articles of organization submitted by the defendant for the first time in the reply papers was not properly before the Supreme Court *(see Tingling v C.I.N.H.R., Inc.,*74 AD3d 954, 956 [2010]; *Gonzalez v Sun Moon Enters. Corp.,*53 AD3d 526, 526-527 [2008]; *Ramos v Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,*51 AD3d 896, 897 [2008]). Since the defendant failed to establish that the county designated by the plaintiff in the first instance was improper, its motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Nassau County was properly denied *(see Gonzalez v Sun Moon Enters. Corp.,*53 AD3d 526 [2008]; *Nixon v Federated Dept. Stores,*170 AD2d 659, 660 [1991]).

Balkin, J.E, Roman, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7105

WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRICHARD A. LANHAM, SR., Warden or Commissioner; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BIANCA; SERGEANT ANDERSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DICKUS; OTHER STAFF MEMBERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-993-DKC) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Allen Legg filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on April 15, 1998; Legg’s notice of appeal was filed on July 23, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Legg’s failure to note a timely appealor obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal and deny Legg’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
 
                              VIALOG CORPORATION
           CALCULATION OF SHARES USED IN DETERMINING LOSS PER SHARE
           FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND 1998

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,     SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                        ---------------------------     -------------------------
                                            1997             1998           1997           1998    
                                        ----------       ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                     <C>              <C>            <C>            <C> 
BASIC LOSS PER SHARE
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                     2,799,300        3,628,072      2,773,300      3,585,370
                                         =========        =========      =========      =========
<CAPTION> 
                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,     SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                        ---------------------------     -------------------------
                                           1997             1998           1997           1998    
                                        ----------       ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                     <C>              <C>            <C>            <C> 
DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                     2,799,300        3,628,072      2,773,300      3,585,370
Common stock equivalents                         -                -              -              -
                                         ---------        ---------      ---------      ---------
Total                                    2,799,300        3,628,072      2,773,300      3,585,370
                                         =========        =========      =========      =========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          36,217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        789
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,319
<PP&E>                                          20,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,722
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,381
<SALES>                                         29,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,368
<CGS>                                           22,208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (383)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,348
<INCOME-TAX>                                       893
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,455
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,455
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED  6/30/98 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001016439
<NAME>                        Intelligroup, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-01-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        40,046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               40,046
<CGS>                                          24,854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  35,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               105
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (29)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,835
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,012
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,823
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,823
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .25 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .24 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>      This amount represents Basic Earnings per Share in accordance with the
          requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting Standards No. 128 -
          "Earnings per Share".

<F2>      This amount  represents  Diluted Earnings per Share in accordance with
          the  requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards No.
          128 - "Earnings per Share".
</FN>


</TABLE>
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 79415.-9-I

)

Respondent,

) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

v. )

)

TIMOTHY HARRIS, )

Appellant. ) FILED: MAR 1 6 2020

PER CURIAM — Timothy Harris appeals his convictions for first degree rape and

first degree robbery. He contends, and the State concedes, that the convictions must

be reversed because the jury was instructed on an uncharged alternative means of

committing each crime, and because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt. In addition, Harris contends, and the State concedes, that the mandatory joinder

rule precludes the State from charging the previously uncharged alternative means in

any new charging document on remand. We accept the concession of error and

reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

3 ~a1v,1 ~4tr