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



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Eric J. Pulaski, certify that: 1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A, Amendment
No. 1 of BindView Development
Corporation; 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 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 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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. Date: December 20, 2004 /s/ ERIC J. PULASKI

Eric J. Pulaski
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
### [§2447a. Renumbered §4421]
§ 63.22 Can an employer certify an individual with a prior conviction or substantiated misconduct as suitable for employment? ( a ) The *Bureau of Indian Affairs* must use Federal adjudicative standards which allow the BIA to certify that an individual is suitable for employment in a position that does not involve regular contact with or control over Indian children. The adjudicating officer must determine that the individual's prior conduct will not interfere with the performance of duties and will not create a potential for risk to the safety and well-being of Indian children.
( b ) *Indian tribes and tribal organizations* must identify those positions which permit contact with or control over Indian children and establish standards to determine suitability for employment. Those standards should then be used to determine whether an individual is suitable for employment in a position that permits contact with or control over Indian children. If not, the individual may only be placed in a position that does not permit contact with or control over Indian children.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-75 

June 23, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4063(a) Liability of Substantial Employer for Withdrawal. Notice of Withdrawal of Substantial Employer 

OPINION: 

 Your letters of October 31, 1974 and January 28, 1975 to Mr. * * * of the * * * office of the Labor Management

Services Administration in regard to the * * * been forwarded to this office for reply. 

Your letter of October 31, 1974 asks what form the notice to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC")

under Sec. 4063(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") should take. We do not require

that the notice take any particular form, although certain information must be provided to the PBGC so that we can

determine whether the employer is liable for benefits guaranteed by the Corporation. I have enclosed a copy of our

standard request for information relating to the withdrawal from a plan by a substantial employer. All information should

be sent to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Coroporation at P.O. Box 7119, Washington, D.C. 20044. 

Your letter of January 28, 1975 asks whether employer contributions msut equal or exceed 10% of all employer

contributions for the appropriate years for the employer to be a "substantial employer" under either Subsection [*2]

4001(a) (2) (A) or Sec. 4001(a) (2) (B) of ERISA. We interpret each of these subsections to require that employer

contributions equal or exceed 10% of all employer contributions for the appropriate years for the employer to be a

substantial employer under either Subsection. 

If you have any further questions concerning ERISA, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
#### § 700.167 Moving and related expenses—fixed payment.

A displaced person (other than an outdoor advertising display business who is eligible for a payment for his actual moving and related expenses under subpart D of these regulations) is entitled to receive a fixed payment in lieu of a payment for such actual moving and related expenses.
### SUBCHAPTER II—REQUIRED CAPITAL LEVELS FOR REGULATED ENTITIES, SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT POWERS, AND REVIEWS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
#### In the Matter of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent, v Licette Gonzalez et al., Appellants.

[825 NYS2d 132]

In a proceeding, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated April 18, 2005, which granted that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay the arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants’ failure to complete and return a sworn “Notice of Intention to Make Claim” form, which their insurer promptly provided to the appellants’ attorney on September 9, 2004, after receiving the attorney’s letter dated September 2, 2004, constituted a breach of a condition of coverage under the policy’s supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists endorsement, providing a basis for disclaimer or denial of coverage *(see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Aguirre,*7 NY3d 772 [2006]). The insurer’s commencement of the instant proceeding on October 5, 2004, following receipt of the appellants’ notice of intention to arbitrate on September 16, 2004, constituted timely, sufficient denial of coverage and disclaimer “as soon as reasonably possible” (Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; *see Matter of American Cas. Ins. Co. v Silverman,*271 AD2d 528 [2000]; *cf. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Aguirre, supra),*which was 26 days after the “Notice of Intention to Make Claim” form was mailed to the appellants’ attorney.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch *817of the petition which was to permanently stay the uninsured motorist arbitration.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ, concur.
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.181 Who may appeal Departmental decisions or inaction under this part? The following persons or entities may appeal Department decisions or inaction under this part: ( a ) A Tribe or TEDO that is adversely affected by a decision of or inaction by an official of the Department of the Interior under this part;
( b ) A third party who has entered into a lease, right-of-way, or business agreement with a Tribe under an approved TERA and is adversely affected by a decision of, or inaction by a Department official under this part; or
( c ) An interested party who is adversely affected by a decision or inaction by the Secretary under subpart E of this part, provided that the interested party may appeal only those issues raised in its prior participation under subpart E of this part and may not appeal any other decision rendered or inaction under this part.
[73 FR 12821, Mar. 10, 2008, as amended at 84 FR 69614, Dec. 18, 2019]
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

79-13 

September 28, 1979 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(13) Plans Covered. Professional Service Employer Plans

4021(c)(2)(B) Plans Covered. Definition of Professional Individuals 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your inquiry whether the above-referenced pension plan (the "Plan") is exempt from the

termination insurance provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act") under §

4021(b)(13) as a professional service employer. 

Section 4021(b)(13) of the Act excludes from coverage any plan: 

established and maintained by a professional service employer which does not at any time after the date of enactment

of this Act have more than 25 active participants in the plan. (emphasis added). 

A professional service employer is any entity owned or controlled by professional individuals, as defined in §

4021(c)(2)(B) of the Act, where both the entity and the professional individuals owning and controlling it are engaged

in the performance of the same professional service. 

Section 4021(c)(2)(B) lists some but not all of those individuals who are considered to be "professional individuals."

Psychologists are included in the list. 

In view of the fact that your husband, * * *, is a clinical psychologist and controls [*2] a majority of the stock of

your corporation, the principal service of which is marital and family counseling, the Plan is excluded under §

4021(b)(13) from coverage under the plan termination insurance provisions of the Act. 

 I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the PBGC Division of the Controller with a request that premiums paid to

the PBGC by the Plan be refunded. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 297

Expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake that

struck Taiwan on September 21, 1999.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 21, 1999

Mr. BEREUTER (for himself, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr.

HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BROWN of

Ohio, Mr. HOEFFEL, and Mr. ORTIZ) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating

earthquake that struck Taiwan on September 21, 1999.

Whereas on the morning of September 21, 1999, a devastating and deadly earthquake shook the counties of

Nantou and Taichung, Taiwan, killing more that 1,700

people, injuring more than 4,000, and leaving more than

100,000 homeless;

Whereas the earthquake of January 21, 1999, has left thousands of buildings in ruin, caused widespread fires, and

destroyed highways and other infrastructure;

Whereas the strength, courage, and determination of the people of Taiwan has been displayed since the earthquake;
2

• HRES 297 IH

Whereas the people of the United States and Taiwan share

strong friendship and mutual interests and respect;

Whereas the United States has offered whatever technical assistance might be needed and has dispatched the Urban

Search and Rescue Team of Fairfax County, Virginia;

and

Whereas offers of assistance have come from the Governments of Japan, Singapore, the People’s Republic of

China, Turkey, and others: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) expresses its deepest sympathies to the citi3 zens of Nantou and Taichung and all of Taiwan for

4 the tragic losses suffered as a result of the earth5 quake of September 21, 1999;

6 (2) expresses its support for the people of Tai7 wan as they continue their efforts to rebuild their

8 cities and their lives;

9 (3) expresses support for disaster assistance

10 being provided by the United States Agency for

11 International Development and other relief agencies;

12 and

13 (4) recognizes and encourages the important as14 sistance that also could be provided by other nations

15 to alleviate the suffering of the people of Taiwan.

Æ
### §705. Creditors' committee

(a) At the meeting under section 341(a) of this title, creditors that may vote for a trustee under section 702(a) of this title may elect a committee of not fewer than three, and not more than eleven, creditors, each of whom holds an allowable unsecured claim of a kind entitled to distribution under section 726(a)(2) of this title.

(b) A committee elected under subsection (a) of this section may consult with the trustee or the United States trustee in connection with the administration of the estate, make recommendations to the trustee or the United States trustee respecting the performance of the trustee's duties, and submit to the court or the United States trustee any question affecting the administration of the estate.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2605; Pub. L. 99–554, title II, §218, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3100.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### legislative statements

Section 705(a) of the House amendment adopts a provision contained in the Senate amendment that limits a committee of creditors to not more than 11; the House bill contained no maximum limitation.

#### senate report no. 95–989

This section is derived from section 44b of the Bankruptcy Act [section 72(b) of former title 11] without substantial change. It permits election by general unsecured creditors of a committee of not fewer than 3 members and not more than 11 members to consult with the trustee in connection with the administration of the estate, to make recommendations to the trustee respecting the performance of his duties, and to submit to the court any question affecting the administration of the estate. There is no provision for compensation or reimbursement of its counsel.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–554 inserted "or the United States trustee" in three places.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Effective date and applicability of amendment by Pub. L. 99–554 dependent upon the judicial district involved, see section 302(d), (e) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
----

|   | (1) | Based on my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  | April 30, 2013 |   | /s/ MIGUEL PENELLA      |
|--------|----------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |           |   | Miguel Penella          |
|   |           |   | Chief Executive Officer |

----
Office of Inspector General

445 12 Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024-2101 | (202) 326-4030 | oig.pbgc.gov

September 27, 2023

MEMORANDUM

TO: Lisa Carter

Director, Corporate Controls and Reviews Department

FROM: John Seger

Assistant Inspector General for Audit

SUBJECT: Closure of RCF 2023-05-02

We reviewed PBGC's legal analysis regarding the agency's position that it did not 

violate the PIIA and we obtained additional information from OMB regarding the below 

recommendation.

2023-05-02: We recommend that the Office of Negotiations and Restructuring, 

for SFA applications that were approved under the Interim Final Rule, PBGC 

should implement procedures to verify SFA payments did not include questioned 

cost for deceased individuals and recover overpayments (Appendix IV).

We agree with the conclusions reached and determined that this recommendation is 

closed as of September 27, 2023. If you have any questions, please contact me at 

extension 3315.

cc: John Hanley, ONR Chief of Negotiations and Reconstructing

James J. Donofrio, NRAD Chief Negotiating Actuary

Jarred Scott, NRAD Actuary
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 998

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an incentive for

expanding employment in rural areas by allowing employers the work

opportunity credit for hiring residents of rural areas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1999

Mr. HAYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

an incentive for expanding employment in rural areas

by allowing employers the work opportunity credit for

hiring residents of rural areas.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Economic Devel5 opment and Opportunities Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 998 IH

1 SEC. 2. WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT TO APPLY TO NEW

2 EMPLOYEES WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF RURAL

3 AREAS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining members of

6 targeted groups) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end

7 of subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end

8 of subparagraph (H) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding

9 at the end the following new subparagraph:

10 ‘‘(I) a rural area resident.’’

11 (b) RURAL AREA RESIDENT.—Subsection (d) of sec12 tion 51 of such Code is amended by redesignating para13 graphs (10) through (12) as paragraphs (11) through

14 (13), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (9) the

15 following new paragraph:

16 ‘‘(10) RURAL AREA RESIDENT.—

17 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘rural area

18 resident’ means, with respect to any period, any

19 employee of the employer if—

20 ‘‘(i) substantially all of the services

21 performed during such period by such em22 ployee for such employer are performed

23 within an area determined by the Secretary

24 of Agriculture to be a rural area, and
3

•HR 998 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) the principal place of abode of

2 such employee while performing such serv3 ices is within such an area.

4 ‘‘(B) TERMINATION.—Such term shall not

5 include any individual who begins work for the

6 employer after the date which is 5 years after

7 the date of the enactment of this paragraph.’’

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 this section shall apply to individuals who begin work for

10 the employer after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
§ 211.48 Permission to start operations. ( a ) No exploration, drilling, or mining operations are permitted on any Indian lands before the Secretary has granted written approval of a mineral lease or permit pursuant to the regulations in this part.
( b ) After a lease or permit is approved, written permission must be secured from the Secretary before any operations are started on the leased premises, in accordance with applicable rules and regulations in 25 CFR part 216; 30 CFR chapter II, subchapters A and C; 30 CFR part 750 (Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations on Indian Lands), 43 CFR parts 3160, 3260, 3480, 3590, and Orders or Notices to Lessees (NTLs) issued thereunder.
#### Constantine J. McGuire v. Margaret E. Hughes.

Application granted. Order signed.
#### Ferdinando De Luca, Appellant, v. Archer Manufacturing Company, Respondent.

Determination affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion,
# C_2006326EN.01002801.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/28

---

Action brought on 16 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-422/06)

(2006/C 326/57)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 74/557/EEC of 4 June 1974 on the attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of activities of self-employed persons and of intermediaries engaging in the trade and distribution of toxic products (1) or, in any event, not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 74/557/EEC of 4 June 1974 on the attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of activities of self-employed persons and of intermediaries engaging in the trade and distribution of toxic products (1) or, in any event, not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 74/557 expired on 30 June 2004.

---

(1)  OJ No L 307, 18.11.1974, p. 5.

1

---