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

Certification of CFO Pursuant to
Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert Chmiel, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 of Consolidated Energy, Inc.;

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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 19, 2006

/s/Robert Chmiel

Robert Chmiel

Interim Chief Financial Officer
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

94-7 

September 30, 1994 

REFERENCE: 

>4041(b)(3)> 

>29 CFR 2617.6> 

>29 CFR 2617.28(c)> 

OPINION: 

I write in response to your request for the opinion of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC" ) regarding

alternatives available for distributing plan assets in satisfaction of bene fit liabilities attributable to participants who,

despite reasonable efforts, cannot be located ("missing participants") by the administrator of a terminating singleemployer defined benefit pension plan. In particular, you inquire whether the PBGC would permit the transfer of such

assets to an interest-bearing account under a defined contribution plan sponsored by the same employer. 

The methods for making a distribution for missing participants under section 4041(b)(3)(A) of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1341(b)(3)(A), are set forth in the

preamble to the PBGC's Final Rule for Distress and Standard Terminations of Single-Employer Plans. See "Distress

Terminations of Single-Employer Plans; Standard Terminations of Single-Employer Plans; Final Rule," 57 Fed. Reg.

59,206, 59,214-215 (1992) (codified at 29 C.F.R. § § 2616 and 2617). Generally, the [*2] plan administrator must

purchase an irrevocable commitment from an insurer for each missing participant. However, if a participant's benefit

is valued at $ 3,500 or less and would otherwise be distributed in a lump sum, or if an irrevocable commitment cannot

be purchased, the plan administrator should deposit those funds in an individual interest-bearing account in the

participant's name at a federally insured institution. If the plan administrator is unable to locate an institution willing to

open individual interest-bearing accounts, the use of a pooled interest-bearing account maintained by a fiduciary

designated by the plan administrator would be allowed. See 57 Fed. Reg. at 59,214-215. 

You correctly point out that transferring assets attributable to the benefits of missing participants to an interestbearing account under a defined contribution plan may be permitted n the case of a terminating multiemployer plan,

under section 4041A(f) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1341A(f). See PBGC Opinion Ltr. 91-8. The opinion expressed there

was limited to section 4041A(f), and was subject to a number of conditions, including compliance with the Internal

Revenue Code ("IRC"). See [*3] id. In the single-employer plan context, the agency's position remains as stated in

the preamble to the Termination Rule discussed above. You also correctly point out that such a transfer to a singleemployer defined contribution plan may also implicate, among other provisions of the IRC, the accrued benefit protection

rules. See IRC § 411(d)(6). You should contact the Internal Revenue Service for advice on how the IRC may apply

in such cases. 

If you have any further questions about this matter, you may call David W . Kemps of my staff at 202-326-4124. 

Carol Connor Flowe 

General Counsel
§ 115.15 Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches. ( a ) Searches may be necessary to ensure the safety of officers, civilians and detainees; to detect and secure evidence of criminal activity; and to promote security, safety, and related interests at immigration detention facilities.
( b ) Cross-gender pat-down searches of male detainees shall not be conducted unless, after reasonable diligence, staff of the same gender is not available at the time the pat-down search is required or in exigent circumstances.
( c ) Cross-gender pat-down searches of female detainees shall not be conducted unless in exigent circumstances.
( d ) All cross-gender pat-down searches shall be documented.
( e ) Cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches shall not be conducted except in exigent circumstances, including consideration of officer safety, or when performed by medical practitioners. Facility staff shall not conduct visual body cavity searches of juveniles and, instead, shall refer all such body cavity searches of juveniles to a medical practitioner.
( f ) All strip searches and visual body cavity searches shall be documented.
( g ) Each facility shall implement policies and procedures that enable detainees to shower, perform bodily functions, and change clothing without being viewed by staff of the opposite gender, except in exigent circumstances or when such viewing is incidental to routine cell checks or is otherwise appropriate in connection with a medical examination or monitored bowel movement. Such policies and procedures shall require staff of the opposite gender to announce their presence when entering an area where detainees are likely to be showering, performing bodily functions, or changing clothing.
( h ) The facility shall permit detainees in Family Residential Facilities to shower, perform bodily functions, and change clothing without being viewed by staff, except in exigent circumstances or when such viewing is incidental to routine cell checks or is otherwise appropriate in connection with a medical examination or monitored bowel movement.
( i ) The facility shall not search or physically examine a detainee for the sole purpose of determining the detainee's genital characteristics. If the detainee's gender is unknown, it may be determined during conversations with the detainee, by reviewing medical records, or, if necessary, learning that information as part of a standard medical examination that all detainees must undergo as part of intake or other processing procedure conducted in private, by a medical practitioner.
( j ) The agency shall train security staff in proper procedures for conducting pat-down searches, including cross-gender pat-down searches and searches of transgender and intersex detainees. All pat-down searches shall be conducted in a professional and respectful manner, and in the least intrusive manner possible, consistent with security needs and agency policy, including consideration of officer safety.
### Part C—Federal Insurance Against Burglary and Theft
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 4, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. GUADALUPE ALBERTO GARCIA-LARA, JR., also known as Jose Perez-Gonzales, also known as Armando Preciado-Ramirez, Defendant - Appellee. No. 06-3054

ORDER
Before TACHA , Chief Circuit Judge, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O’BRIEN, McCONNELL, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH , and HOLMES , Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellee’s petition for rehearing, or, in the alternative, to abate decision on rehearing pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Gall v. United States , No. 07-7949, is denied by the panel. Judge Lucero votes to grant rehearing, or, in the alternative, to abate decision on rehearing pending the decision in Gall
. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of-2- the court who are in regular active service. A poll was requested and Judges Briscoe, Lucero, Murphy, and O’Brien voted to grant rehearing. Judges Briscoe, Lucero, Murphy, O’Brien, and Tymkovich voted in the alternative to abate decision on rehearing en banc pending Gall
. The petition is therefore denied. Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6817

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE JAMES JONES, a/k/a Ricky Jones, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-93-285, CA-00-1253-17) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie James Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Dean Arthur Eichelberger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Willie James Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jones , Nos. CR-93-285; CA-00-1253-17 (D.S.C. May 24, 2000). 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
§ 115.11 Zero tolerance of sexual abuse; Prevention of Sexual Assault Coordinator. ( a ) The agency shall have a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and outlining the agency's approach to preventing, detecting, and responding to such conduct.
( b ) The agency shall employ or designate an upper-level, agency-wide Prevention of Sexual Assault Coordinator (PSA Coordinator) with sufficient time and authority to develop, implement, and oversee agency efforts to comply with these standards in all of its immigration detention facilities.
( c ) Each facility shall have a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and outlining the facility's approach to preventing, detecting, and responding to such conduct. The agency shall review and approve each facility's written policy.
( d ) Each facility shall employ or designate a Prevention of Sexual Assault Compliance Manager (PSA Compliance Manager) who shall serve as the facility point of contact for the agency PSA Coordinator and who has sufficient time and authority to oversee facility efforts to comply with facility sexual abuse prevention and intervention policies and procedures.
# C_2007096EN.01003401.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2007 — Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission

(Case T-195/05) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Call for tenders for programme evaluation activities and other activities in the public health sector - Rejection of a tender - Conflict of interest)

(2007/C 96/70)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Deloitte Business Advisory NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Van Heuven, S. Ronse and S. Logie, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment, firstly, of the Commission's decision rejecting the tender from Euphet for the public procurement contract ‘Evaluation Framework Contract covering the policy areas of [the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection], Lot 1 (Public Health) — call for tenders SANCO/2004/01/041 ’and, secondly, of the Commission's decision awarding that contract to a third party

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the applicant, Deloitte Business Advisory NV, to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant, Deloitte Business Advisory NV, to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

1

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:Aviation safety summary**** 
SuDocNumber:A13.166/2:
ItemNumber:0084-P-01(online)
CGPSystem Number:000599353
 
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2013
2016**
# C_2007082EN.01003703.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 2007 — Olimpiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies v Commission

(Case T-423/05 R)

(Interim measures - Suspension of operation - State aid - Urgency)

(2007/C 82/83)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Olimpiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by P. Anestis, S. Mavroghenis, S. Jordan, D. Geradin, lawyers, and T. Soames, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by D. Triantafyllou and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for the suspension of operation of Article 2(1) in combination with Article 1(2) to (4) of the Commission's decision concerning State aid (C 11/2004 (ex NN 4/2003) — Olympic Airways — Restructuring and privatisation) of 14 September 2005.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                     Advisory Committee for Geosciences (1755).                

*Dates:*                     April 13, 2011; 8:30 a.m.- 5 p.m., April 14, 2011; 8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.                

*Place:*                     Stafford I, Room 1235, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Open.                

*Contact Person:*                     Melissa Lane, National Science Foundation, Suite 705, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Phone 703-292-8500.                

*Minutes:*                     May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     To provide advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning support for geosciences.                

## Agenda

### April 13, 2011

    - Directorate activities and plans including discussion of FY 2012 NSF-Wide Investments.
    - Topical Subcommittee Meetings.
    - Meeting with the Director.

### April 14, 2011

    - Division Subcommittee Meetings.
    - Divisional and Topical Subcommittee Reports.
    - Action Items/Planning for Fall Meeting.

Dated: March 1, 2011.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2011-4876 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

          CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Link Plus Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
C. Kolasch, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
         material aspects, the financial condition and result of operations on
         the Company.



/s/ Donald C. Kolasch
----------------------------
Donald C. Kolasch, President
§ 19.10 Commingling of Federal assistance. ( a ) If a State, local, or Tribal government voluntarily contributes its own funds to supplement Federally supported activities, the State, local, or Tribal government has the option to segregate the Federal assistance or commingle it.
( b ) If the State, local, or Tribal government chooses to commingle its own and Federal funds, the requirements of this part apply to all of the commingled funds.
( c ) If a State, local, or Tribal government is required to contribute matching funds to supplement a Federally supported activity, the matching funds are considered commingled with the Federal assistance and therefore subject to the requirements of this part.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

78-20 

September 14, 1978 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4022 Benefits Guaranteed

4022(c) Benefits Guaranteed. Non-Basic Benefits 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request for review of the handling of the * * * (pension plans, with particular reference

to the decision of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") not to cover "non-basic" benefits of the * *

* (* * *) retirees. As you are aware, the PBGC is currently paying benefits to * * * retirees amounting to some $117,000

per month under the basic benefit guarantee program and expects ultimately to pay benefits amounting to some $30

million to participants in the four covered plans and their beneficiaries. Additionally, the PBGC is currently engaged

in litigation in the United States District Court for the Western District of * * *, defending its determination that the *

* * pension plans are * * * covered by the termination insurance provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and that the PBGC should pay guaranteed benefits to those participants. 

Section 4022(c) of ERISA provides that the PBGC may, in its discretion, establish a guarantee program for coverage

of non-basic plan benefits. The PBGC has found that its basic benefit program covers [*2] the great majority of covered

plan benefits and has deferred institution of a non-basic benefit program until additional experience is gained under the

basic benefits program. 

With respect to the * * * pension plans specifically, we do not believe that Section 4022 of ERISA permits non-basic

coverage on a case-by-case basis, but rather envisions a program applicable to all covered plans. Because of this, the

PBGC cannot guarantee the payment of the * * * non-basic benefits. 

I hope that this explanation has been helpful to you. 

Matthew M. Lind 

Executive Director