alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Pierric Senay, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports
on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust
2012-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
Act periodic reports;



4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer
has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and



5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.



In giving the certifications above, I have
reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Citibank, N.A.



Date: March 18, 2016



| | By: | /s/ Pierric Senay                                            
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Pierric Senay                                          
| |     | Title:  President and Secretary                              
| |     | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
# C_2017378EN.01029701.xml

| 9.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/297 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/297

---

P7_TA(2014)0182

Extension of the EC-USA scientific and technological cooperation agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 11 March 2014 on the draft Council decision concerning the extension of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America (15854/2013 — C7-0462/2013 — 2013/0351(NLE))

(Consent)

(2017/C 378/36)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (15854/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (15854/2013),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 98/591/EC of 13 October 1998 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 98/591/EC of 13 October 1998 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America,

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0462/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0462/2013),

| — | having regard to Rule 81(1), subparagraphs 1 and 3, and Rules 81(2), 90(7) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 81(1), subparagraphs 1 and 3, and Rules 81(2), 90(7) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0126/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0126/2014),

| 1. | Consents to the extension of the Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to the extension of the Agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the United States of America. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the United States of America.

---
#### § 227.30 Forms.

The provisions of § 211.30 of this chapter, or as hereafter amended are applicable to this part.

[24 FR 7949, Oct. 2, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 468 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 12, 2000.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2328) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize 
the Clean Lakes Program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. Each 
section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are 
waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of 
rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without 
intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on 
the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Harry Farr, Appellant, v Michael J. Covert, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[824 NYS2d 515]

*1205Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), entered July 1, 2005. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the complaint after a nonjury trial.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, to impose an equitable lien on a parcel of real property. Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint, after a nonjury trial, on the ground that plaintiff failed to meet all of the requirements for the imposition of an equitable lien. We disagree. “An equitable lien may be imposed on property where one in a confidential relationship with the owner has expended money for improvement of the property based on a promise to convey, reimburse or grant a lesser interest in the property” *(Johnston v Martin,*183 AD2d 1019, 1020 [1992]; *see Leary v Corvin,*181 NY 222, 229-230 [1905]; *Shanley v Crisafulli,*292 AD2d 827 [2002]; *Petrukevich v Maksimovich,*1 AD2d 786 [1956]). Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of an express or implied promise to convey any interest in the subject parcel to him or to reimburse him for improvements to the subject parcel. The subjective expectation of plaintiff that an interest in the property would be conveyed to him, however sincere, is insufficient to establish an equitable lien *(see Scivoletti v Marsala,*61 NY2d 806, 808-809 [1984]; *Lester v Zimmer,*197 AD2d 783, 784 [1993]). Thus, the court properly dismissed the complaint.

Plaintiffs remaining contention concerns dicta in the court’s decision that was not necessary to the court’s resolution of the issues raised at trial *(see Dow v Niagara Sq. Assoc.,*190 AD2d 1016 [1993], *lv denied*83 NY2d 753 [1994]; *see generally Matter of Khatib v Liverpool Cent. School Dist.,*244 AD2d 957 [1997]; *Schuster v Schweitzer,*203 AD2d 552 [1994]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1088 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-099-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
§ 162.351 What is the approval process for an assignment of a residential lease? ( a ) When we receive an assignment that meets the requirements of this subpart, we will notify the parties of the date we receive it. If our approval is required, we have 30 days from receipt of the executed assignment, proof of required consents, and required documentation to approve or disapprove the assignment. Our determination whether to approve the assignment will be in writing and will state the basis for our approval or disapproval.
( b ) If we do not meet the deadline in this section, the lessee or Indian landowners may take appropriate action under § 162.363.
# C_2006178EN.01001101.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/11

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2006 — (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Milano and the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Michel Mulliez and Others and Giuseppe Momblano (Joined Cases C-23/03 and C-52/03), Alessandro Nizza and Giacomo Pizzi (C-133/03), Fabrizio Barra (C-337/03), Adelio Aggio and Others (C-473/03)

(Joined Cases C-23/03, C-52/03, C-133/03, C-337/03 and C-473/03) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Company law - First Directive 68/151/EEC, Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC and Seventh Directive 83/349/EEC - Annual accounts - Principle of a true and fair view - Penalties provided for in cases of false information on companies (false accounting) - Article 6 of First Directive 68/151/EEC - Requirement that penalties for breaches of Community law be appropriate)

(2006/C 178/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring courts

Tribunale ordinario di Milano, Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Criminal proceedings against

Michel Mulliez, Patrick Lesaffre, Peter Hordjk, Michel Hoste, Christophe Dubrulle, Benoit Lheureux, Guy Geffroy, Gregory Sartorius and Giuseppe Momblano (Joined Cases C-23/03 and C-52/03), Alessandro Nizza and Giacomo Pizzi (C-133/03), Fabrizio Barra (C-337/03), Adelio Aggio and Others (C-473/03)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Milano, Tribunale ordinario di Torino — Interpretation of Article 6 of First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ L 65, p. 8) — Annual accounts — Offences of failure to publish, and publication of false information — Appropriate penalties

Operative part of the order

In situations such as those in issue in the main proceedings, First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, cannot be relied on as such against accused persons by the authorities of a Member State within the context of criminal proceedings, in view of the fact that a directive cannot, of itself and independently of national legislation adopted by a Member State for its implementation, have the effect of determining or increasing the criminal liability of those accused persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

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 General Metals Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen Parent, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

Dated: December 19, 2008

/s/ Stephen Parent 
Stephen Parent 
President and Chief Executive Officer 
(Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**LUIS T. GAUTHIER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 189 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 2nd day of November, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
# C_2006224EN.01002801.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/28

---

Action brought on 24 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal

(Case C-324/06)

(2006/C 224/52)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Portugal

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC (1) of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC (1) of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

Candida guilliermondii

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

—

order the Republic of Portugal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive expired on 30 June 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 379, p. 81.

1

---
Training Directorate

Our mission is to ensure the safe and expeditious defueling of the Red Hill

Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (RHBFSF) by coordinating operational and 

occupational safety training for all JTF-RH personnel working at RHBFSF 

while coordinating fire and spill response drills for JTF personnel with 

required emergency management stakeholders.

JTF-RH Spill Training Exercises

SCENARIO RESPONSE 

EXERCISE 

DATE

1. Most Likely 

Release in the 

Tank Gallery

Defueling Spill 

Drill Exercise

July 13, 2023

2-3. Most Likely 

Release in LAT 

or HT Piping 

Repacking Spill 

Drill Exercise

June 8, 2023

4. Tanker 

Overfill

JTF-RH Spill 

Exercise

August 2023

5. Most 

Dangerous 

Release –

Defueling

Defueling Spill 

Drill Exercise

July 13, 2023

6. Dewatering TTX & Conditions 

Walk through

April 12 & 14, 

2023

7. Fire 

Suppression

FED Fire Exercise TBD

267

36%

196

26%

125

17%

45

6%

109

15%

2

Total # of personnel Participating 

744

CNRH

JTF-RH

JBPHH

NAVFAC

FLC

DLA
#### § 152.18 Sale with the consent of natural guardian or person designated by the Secretary.

Pursuant to the Act of May 29, 1908 (35 Stat. 444; 25 U.S.C. 404), the Secretary may, with the consent of the natural guardian of a minor, sell trust or restricted land belonging to such minor; and the Secretary may, with the consent of a person designated by him, sell trust or restricted land belonging to Indians who are minor orphans without a natural guardian, and Indians who are non compos mentis or otherwise under legal disability. The authority contained in this act is not applicable to lands in Oklahoma, Minnesota, and South Dakota, nor to lands authorized to be sold by the Act of May 14, 1948 (62 Stat. 236; 25 U.S.C. 483).
§ 2.800 What is the purpose of this subpart? ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to allow an account holder to dispute the accuracy of the activity contained within a Statement of Performance.
( b ) The appeals process in this subpart is summarized as follows: ( 1 ) Account holders receive a Statement of Performance at least each quarter. In limited circumstances, account holders may only receive a Statement of Performance annually based upon activity.
( 2 ) An account holder may submit an Objection to the Statement of Performance (“Objection”) to the decision-maker.
( 3 ) The decision-maker will render a Decision on the Objection to the Statement of Performance (“Decision”).
( 4 ) An account holder may submit an Appeal of the Decision on the Objection to the Statement of Performance (“Appeal”) to the Director, BTFA.
( 5 ) The Director, BTFA will render the BTFA's ruling on the account holder's appeal.
( 6 ) An account holder may appeal the BTFA's ruling to the AS-IA.
( 7 ) The AS-IA's decision on the account holder's appeal is a final agency action.
### DEPARTMEN TO F TH E AI R FORC E Ai rUniversit y(AETC ) 1 2 Octobe r 201 1 MEMORANDU M FO RU.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mW12-14 0 , . : ' : 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E '~ l ^

- 'o2': i Washington , D C 2059 0 " n '^§> ^ FROM : COMMUNIT Y COLLEG EO FTH E AI RFORC EF'O P 10 0 SouthTurne r

Boulevar d; ^ :::- ' Maxwell-Gunte r

AFB , A L36114-301 1 _K ; SUBJECT ; Renewal o f

Exemptio n 1 . Referenc e t o Exemptio n Numbe r 8251C , Regulatory Docke t Numbe r FAA-200 1 -875 0 (Originall y Regulatory Docke t Numbe r 27429) , Petitio n o f

Communit

y Colleg e o f

th e Air Forc e fo r a n Exemptio n fro m§ 147.3 1 (C ) (2 ) (Hi ) o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation , relie f wa s grante di n th e publi c interes t sinc e Communit y Colleg e o f th e Ai r Forc e curriculu mconform s t o th e guideline s o f

FA A Advisor y Circular

147-4 . Th e grante dexemptio n permit s U.S . Ai r Forc e aviatio n maintenanc e technician s wh o hav e complete dmilitar y aviatio n maintenanc e educatio n an dtrainin g course s t o b e evaluate dusin g th e sam e criteri atha t ar e use dfor

th e civilia n sector . 2 . Th e Community Colleg e o f th e Ai r Forc e share s regiona l accreditatio n withAi r Universit y b y th e Commissio n o n College s o f th e Southern Associatio n o f College s an dSchool s (SACS) . Th e Community Colleg e o f

th e Ai r Forc e award s nin e Associat e i n Applie dScienc e degree s relevan t t o aviatio n maintenanc e discipline s an d5 9 othe r degree s designe dfor

specifi c Ai r

Forc e occupationa l specialties . 3 . Th e exemptio n grante dt o th e Communit y Colleg e o f th e Ai r Forc e o n 2 3 Novembe r

200 9 expire s o n 2 8 February 2012 . Sinc e relie f from§147.3 1 (c ) (2 ) (iii ) i s stil l i n th e publi c interes t an ddoe s no t

adversel y affec t

safety , an dsinc e th e reaso n an dfact s describe di n th e original exemptio n remai n unchanged , reques t th e exemptio n b e continued . 4 . Thank yo u for you r tim e an dconsideratio n concernin g thi s matter . I f yo u hav e an y question s o r nee dfurther

information , pleas e contac t m e a t (334 ) 649-501 6 o r

E-mail : ir.breedingfolmaxwell.afmil .

JR . Director , Credentialin g Program s an d Co-Chair , JSAMTC C