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

**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification**

I, Thomas M. Petro, certify that:

1.                        I have reviewed this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Fox Chase Bancorp, Inc.;

2.                        Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.                        Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.                        The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant 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; and

5.                        The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: November 9, 2007 | /s/ Thomas M.  Petro                   |   |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Thomas M. Petro                        |
|                   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,140
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               926,424
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,059,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,289,005
<BONDS>                                      1,267,999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,754,190
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,059,743
<SALES>                                     10,207,667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,207,667
<CGS>                                        2,421,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,858,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               437,160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Unaudited figures pending completion of audit.
</FN>
        






</TABLE>
1

Program

Letter

 United States

 Railroad Retirement Board

 Office of Programs

 

Quality Reporting Service Center

Email: QRSC@rrb.gov 

Phone: (312) 751-4992

 Fax: (312) 751-7123

Letter No. 2021-03 Date: 03/05/2021

 

TO: Certification Contact Officials

SUBJECT: Reporting of Payments Made under Public Law (P.L.) 116-127 

Please share this information with the appropriate members of your staff who file service 

and compensation reporting forms for employees of your organization.

Background

On March 18, 2020, Congress passed Public Law (P.L.) 116-127 known as the Families First 

Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The FFCRA 

requires covered employers to provide employees with paid sick leave or expanded family and 

medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19. Based on the FFCRA, the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) issued guidance which stated certain sick leave payments and family 

leave payments pursuant to P.L. 116-127 were subject to taxation for employees under the 

Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). 

The law also provided certain tax credits for qualifying employers with fewer than 500 employees

and tax exemptions for employers who pay sick and family and medical leave benefits under the 

FFCRA. 

Reporting Impact of P.L. 116-227 

As a result of IRS’s guidance, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has reviewed Section 1(h) 

of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) which defines compensation and Section 9 of the Railroad 

Retirement Act which requires covered employers to file reports of compensation paid to their 

employees. In the agency’s review, it has determined that FFCRA payments do meet the 

definition of compensation within the definition of the term in Section 1(h) of the RRA and are 

reportable as compensation under Section 9 of the RRA. 

Therefore, any employer with fewer than 500 employees and whose employees received FFCRA

sickness or family leave payments are required to report those payments that were made from 

April 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 to the RRB as Tier I and Tier II compensation. 
2

Questions

If you have any additional questions concerning creditable and reportable service and 

compensation under the RRA or RUIA or these new changes, please contact the Quality Reporting 

Service Center at the email or telephone number shown above. If you have questions about taxable 

compensation, please contact the Internal Revenue Service, as that agency administersthe Railroad 

Retirement Tax Act (RRTA).

###
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0466. RAYMOND YELVERTON v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Raymond Yelverton seeks discretionary review of the superior court’s order

denying his petition for removal from the sex offender registry under OCGA § 42-1-

19.Among other argumentsraised below, Yelverton challenged the interplaybetween

OCGA § 17-10-6.2 (c) (1) (C) and OCGA § 42-1-19 (a) (4) on ex post facto grounds.

1

The superior court rejected Yelverton’s constitutional challenge, and this application

for discretionary review followed. In his application, Yelverton again raises an ex

post facto claim.

The Supreme Court “has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving

construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United States and

all casesin which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision

has been called into question.” Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane, 266 Ga.

657, 657 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996) (citing Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par.

II). Although we have jurisdiction to apply unquestioned and unambiguous

constitutional provisions, we can resolve a constitutional challenge to a state law only

“if the law has been held to be constitutional against the same attack being made.” 

City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 284 Ga. 434, 436-437 (2) (668 SE2d 247) (2008).

Both statutes were enacted after Yelverton was convicted in 1990. See Ga. L.

2010, p. 168, § 15 (OCGA § 42-1-19); Ga. L. 2006, p. 379, § 21 (OCGA § 17-10-

6.2).

July 14, 2015
It does not appear that the particular constitutional attack raised by Yelverton

has been addressed or considered by the appellate courts.

2 The Supreme Court,

therefore, has jurisdiction over this matter, and Yelverton’s application is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

2 The Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of Georgia’s sexual

offender registration provisions in several contexts, including whether the criminal

penalty for not registering under OCGA § 42-1-12 is an improper ex post facto law. 

See Frazier v. State, 284 Ga. 638, 638-640 (1) (668 SE2d 646) (2008). The Court has

not, however, addressed the ex post facto challenge at issue here or the

constitutionality of OCGA § 17-10-6.2 (c) (1) (C), as applied through OCGA

§ 42-1-19 (a) (4) to a petitioner seeking removal from the sex offender registry.

07/14/2015
Exhibit 10.49
 AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 th
        1




---



##### 



th
        Notice of Termination.
  Basic Payments.
 2




---



##### 



th
  Health and Medical Benefits.
   3




---



##### 



SOVEREIGN
    
    BANCORP, INC.-s- Thomas J. McAuliffeByThomas J. McAuliffe, Director of HumanResourcesDate:
    
    September 18, 2007/s/ Salvatore J. Rinaldi

Salvatore J. Rinaldi`
    
    Date:
    
    , 2007
 4