alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofAugust 21, 2019, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-3 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the“Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: 
/s/ Marc Womack
Name: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2023By: 
/s/ Vikas Gupta
Name: Vikas GuptaTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2023**
### §285g–6. Program regarding obstetrics and gynecology

The Director of the Institute shall establish and maintain within the Institute an intramural laboratory and clinical research program in obstetrics and gynecology.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §452B, as added Pub. L. 103–43, title X, §1011, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 166.)
#### § 1504.1 Cross-references to employee ethical conduct standards and financial disclosure regulations.

Directors and other employees of the African Development Foundation are subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, and the executive branch financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634.
EXHIBIT 10.3

                     LOAN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SHANGHAI PUDONG
    DEVELOPMENT BANK, ZHENGHOU BRANCH AND HENAN ZHONGPIN FOOD SHARE CO., LTD.

             The Shanghai Pudong Development Bank provided four (4) short-term
loan in the aggregate amount of RMB 20,000,000.00 to Henan Zhongpin Food Share
Co., Ltd. (the "Borrower") to be used by the Borrower as its working capital,
all with an interest rate of 0.465% per month and a term of six months from the
date of the agreement. The loan agreements were entered into between April 26,
2005 and June 7, 2005, and all the loans have been extended in their term.
May 15, 2012

Address City, State, Zip
Linda Irokawa-Otani, Regulations Coordinator Department ofPesticide Regulation 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4015 Sacramento, California 95812-4015 RE: ProposedNon-Fumigant VOC Regulations

Dear Ms. Irokawa-Otani: 1am writing in response to your proposed VOC regulations for Non-Fumigantproducts. As aPCA 

### located in the Central Valley ofCalifornia, Ifind yourproposed regulations to be detrimental to my growers business. 

### Iask thatyou make an exemption for oxyfluorfen in your proposedregulations for the following

reasons: First, GoalTender and other low VOC oxyfluorfen formulations areNOT viable substitutes for Goal 2XL and other EC oxyfluorfen products. When GoalTender was launched we tried to use it as apost

### emergence product. Butat thelow rates used for burn down control, GoalTender did not provide my growers, with the efficacy they were used to with Goal 2XL. 

### Secondly, GoalTender provides growers with aflexible tool thatcan'tbe replaced by any other herbicide available onthe market. Goal 2XL provides me with.... Lastly, please allow me to comment on the administrative burden that these regulations push upon our 

### business and ourpeople. Providing written information on the VOC regulations, tracking the intended use period, providing written recommendations and maintaining records for two years adds costs to our business. We will in turn be forced to pass these costs on to our growercustomers. We need Goal 2XL in our summer postemergent weedcontrol programs. Its elimination will result in significant cost increases and decreased weed control in orchards and vineyards. This decreased weed control could even result in additional trips across the field with atractorand sprayer. We respectfully request that you find away to keep Goal 2XL and other EC formulations available during the post emergent market months ofMay through October.

Best Regards, 

## D /? /j (cr'C lA'>4t"0*"iye*) 

# fact) ds-~ 6SfJ
### §2296a–2. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

There is authorized to be appropriated $715,000,000 to carry out this part. The aggregate amount authorized in the preceding sentence shall be increased annually as provided in section 2296a of this title, based upon an inflation index to be determined by the Secretary.

#### (b) Source

Funds described in subsection (a) shall be provided from the Fund established under section 2297g of this title.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title X, §1003, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2947; Pub. L. 104–259, §3(b), Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3174; Pub. L. 105–388, §11(b), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3485; Pub. L. 107–222, §1(b), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1336.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–222 substituted "$715,000,000" for "$490,000,000".

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–388 substituted "$490,000,000" for "$415,000,000".

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–259 substituted "$415,000,000" for "$310,000,000".
(February 21, 1978)

#### Abby Smith-Be’ery, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Jehoshoa Be’ery, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v Richard W. Harden et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 28, 1977, unanimously reversed, to the extent appealed from in the exercise of discretion, and defendants’ motion for change of venue to Niagara County granted, without costs and without disbursements (see *Chung v Kivell,*57 AD2d 790). No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Silver-man, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,415                          
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  319,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               325,179
<PP&E>                                       9,557,6629
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,357,917)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,524,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,741
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,524,924
<SALES>                                        412,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               414,868
<CGS>                                          334,866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  334,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,993
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,009
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 4, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131191 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131191 

 COA: 266882 

Oakland CC: 2003-191040-FH 

ROBERT NEAL BISGEIER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of 

Appeals shall then remand the case to the Oakland Circuit Court to conduct an 

evidentiary hearing pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), on the 

defendant’s claim that the failure to timely seek appellate review was caused by 

ineffective assistance of counsel. If the trial court finds in favor of the defendant’s claim, 

the Court of Appeals shall treat the defendant’s application as having been timely filed. 

It shall then either grant or deny the application. 

0927 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 4, 2006 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2


Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer


of CNA Financial Corporation


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:


|  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30, 2017filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:July 31, 2017By/s/ D. Craig MenseD. Craig MenseChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### § 1508.410 May I approve a participant's use of the services of an excluded person?

After entering into a covered transaction with a participant, you as an agency official may not approve a participant's use of an excluded person as a principal under that transaction, unless you obtain an exception under § 1508.120.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2523 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2523

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2004

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 125 Bull Street in 
   Savannah, Georgia, as the ``Tomochichi United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 125 Bull Street in 
Savannah, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ``Tomochichi 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tomochichi 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
No: 16-031 May 26, 2016

Contact: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Announces Public Availability of Clinch River Early Site Permit Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received an application from the Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Clinch River Nuclear Site in Tennessee. The 

application is now available for public inspection on the NRC website.

TVA filed the application on May 12 seeking an ESP. The NRC’s review would determine if 

the site is suitable for building and operating a nuclear power facility. Even if the NRC eventually 

concludes a permit is justified, TVA would have to file a separate application for permission to build 

and operate a nuclear power plant.

The NRC staff is reviewing the application to determine if it is sufficiently complete to begin 

the agency’s extensive safety and environmental reviews. The staff expects to complete this initial 

review in mid-July. If the NRC concludes the application is complete, the staff will docket it and 

publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board. 

Information about the ESP review process is available on the NRC website. Copies of the 

Clinch River Nuclear Site application will be available at the Kingston Public Library, 1004 Bradford 

Way in Kingston, Tenn., and the Lenoir City Public Library, 100 W. Broadway in Lenoir City, Tenn.
#### § 1006.910 Agency.

*Agency* means any United States executive department, military department, defense agency, or any other agency of the executive branch. Other agencies of the Federal government are not considered “agencies” for the purposes of this part unless they issue regulations adopting the governmentwide Debarment and Suspension system under Executive orders 12549 and 12689.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Carlo Alberto Sisto, 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 CNH Equipment Trust 2019-C (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.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing 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 parties: Citibank, N.A.

 
| March 23, 2020 |   |                                                             |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   |                                                             |
|                | By:    | /s/ Carlo Alberto Sisto                                          |
|                | Name:  | Carlo Alberto Sisto                                              |
|                | Title: | President (senior   officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
### §1973ee–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973ee–4 was editorially reclassified as section 20105 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### §§ 1005.141-1005.148 [Reserved]
§ 1508.350 What must I do if I learn of information required under § 1508.335 after entering into a covered transaction with the African Development Foundation? At any time after you enter into a covered transaction, you must give immediate written notice to the ADF office with which you entered into the transaction if you learn either that— ( a ) You failed to disclose information earlier, as required by § 1508.335; or
( b ) Due to changed circumstances, you or any of the principals for the transaction now meet any of the criteria in § 1508.335.
§ 229.1205 (Item 1205) Drilling and other exploratory and development activities. ( a ) For each of the last three fiscal years, by geographical area, disclose: ( 1 ) The number of net productive and dry exploratory wells drilled; and
( 2 ) The number of net productive and dry development wells drilled.
( b ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this Item 1205, the following terms shall be defined as follows: ( 1 ) A *dry well* is an exploratory, development, or extension well that proves to be incapable of producing either oil or gas in sufficient quantities to justify completion as an oil or gas well.
( 2 ) A *productive well* is an exploratory, development, or extension well that is not a dry well.
( 3 ) *Completion* refers to installation of permanent equipment for production of oil or gas, or, in the case of a dry well, to reporting to the appropriate authority that the well has been abandoned.
( 4 ) The *number of wells drilled* refers to the number of wells completed at any time during the fiscal year, regardless of when drilling was initiated.
( c ) Disclose, by geographic area, for each of the last three years, any other exploratory or development activities conducted, including implementation of mining methods for purposes of oil and gas producing activities.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Cangialosi, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 210]

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, declaration of delinquency vacated and sentence of probation reinstated. Memorandum: The People did not sustain their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated a condition of probation *(see,*CPL 410.70 [3]). The only material evidence offered was the transcript of prior testimony at the underlying criminal trial.

Although the transcript was admissible at the probation violation hearing *(see,*CPL 410.70 [3]), it did not qualify as competent evidence under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule *(see generally,*Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-513 [Farrell 11th ed]), and thus the People failed to meet their burden of proof *(see, People v Owens,*258 AD2d 901, *lv denied*93 NY2d 975; *People v Usher,*80 AD2d 730).

Defendant further contends that the 15-month delay between the filing of the declaration of delinquency and the violation hearing denied him the right to a prompt hearing *(see,*CPL 410.70 [1]). We disagree. Defendant requested a postponement of the violation hearing until such time as the criminal charges were presented to the Grand Jury and his suppression motions were decided. Defendant also indicated that a further adjournment was needed to enable him to obtain the transcripts of the suppression hearing and trial. Under the circumstances, defendant was not denied his right to a prompt hearing. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.— Violation of Probation.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                3620
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                        32775
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                           7505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     45517
<PP&E>                                5553
<DEPRECIATION>                       (2677)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       48578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                35732
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                45
<OTHER-SE>                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         48578
<SALES>                              47868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     47868
<CGS>                                42091
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        42091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      5604
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      5604
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (69)
<INCOME-TAX>                           (15)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                           (54)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### James L. Hanlon, Appellant, v. Madeleff Realty Corp., Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### § 19.10-3 Marriage after retirement.

If an annuitant who was unmarried at the time of retirement, marries, he/she may within one year after such marriage irrevocably elect to receive a reduced annuity and to provide, subject to any obligation to provide a survivor annuity for a former spouse, a survivor annuity for the new spouse. If such an election is made, the principal's annuity shall be reduced in accordance with § 19.10-2 effective on the first day of the first month which begins at least one year after the date of the marriage. The reduction is computed on the commencing rate of the principal's annuity.