alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.2





| | 
| | 











REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Audit and Finance Committee of the Board of Directors
MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation
San Francisco, California



We have examined management’s assertion, included in the
accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”), a wholly owned subsidiary of MUFG Americas Holdings
Corporation, complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC’s Regulation AB for the
servicing of certain retail installment contracts for the Honda Auto Receivables 2013-1 Owner Trust (the “Platform”)
as of March 31, 2015 and for the period from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, excluding criteria 1122 (d) 1(i),
1(ii), 1(iii), 1(iv), 2(i), 2(iii), 2(iv), 2(v), 2(vi), 2(vii), 3(i), 4(i), 4(ii), 4(iii), 4(iv), 4(v), 4(vi), 4(vii), 4(viii),
4(ix), 4(x), 4(xi), 4(xii), 4(xiii), 4(xiv), and 4(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed
by the Bank with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria
other than allocating amounts due to investors with regards to servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii). Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on management’s assertion about the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards
of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence
about the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, determining whether the Bank performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria
during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures
were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Bank during the period covered by this report and, accordingly,
such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further,
an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified
above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report.
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied
with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of March 31, 2015, and for the period from April 1, 2014 to
March 31, 2015, for the Honda Auto Receivables 2013-1 Owner Trust is fairly stated, in all material respects.







May 29, 2015
§ 5.505 Employment criteria. A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless: ( a ) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
( b ) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALMA T. MCBROOM, )

 )

PLAINTIFF, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-767-MEF-SRW

 )

VANESSA GORDON, ET AL., )

 )

DEFENDANTS. )

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss Defendant

Gordon Without Prejudice (Doc. # 65). By this motion, Plaintiff seeks to voluntarily and

unilaterally dismiss her claims against one of several defendants in this case. Although

Plaintiff does not indicate the legal, as opposed to the factual grounds for this motion, it is

properly viewed as a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may only

voluntarily and unilaterally dismiss an action against a defendant prior to the time that

defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs. After

a defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff seeking to dismiss

claims against that defendant must file either: a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties

who have appeared in the action or a proper motion, which may be granted only absent

objection from the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) & Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

Defendant Vanessa Gordon, the defendant Plaintiff seeks to dismiss from this action,

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 70 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
has filed an answer to the Complaint. See Doc. # 18. For this reason, the Court may not

grant Plaintiff’s motion if Vanessa Gordon objects. Plaintiff’s motion does not indicate

whether Vanessa Gordon or any other party objects to the dismissal she seeks. For this

reason, the motion is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that, on or before May 11, 2007,

Plaintiff shall file appropriate submissions in accordance with the requirements of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) in the form of a joint stipulation of dismissal signed by all

parties who have appeared in the action or a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(2) that specifically states whether any defendant objects to the dismissal of

Plaintiff’s claims against Vanessa Gordon without prejudice.

DONE this the 7 day of May, 2007. 

th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 70 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
[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:Federal scientists and engineers**** 
SuDocNumber:NS1.22/9:
ItemNumber:0834-T(online)
CGPSystem Number: 000597342
 
1993(via Internet Archive Way Back Machine)
1995
2002
2005
 **
161 So.2d 282

#### Mrs. Margie BROWN, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of the Minors, James D. Brown, Jr., and Tybera Doreen Brown, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY CO., H. G. Odom, and Maryland Casualty Company.

No. 47137.

March 16, 1964.

In re: Mrs. Margie Brown, etc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Claiborne. 160 So.2d 242.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal’ the result is correct.
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

§ 26.107 Collecting a urine specimen. ( a ) The collector shall direct the donor to go into the room or stall used for urination, provide a specimen of the quantity that has been predetermined by the licensee or other entity, as defined in § 26.109(a), not flush the toilet, and return with the specimen as soon as the donor has completed the void. ( 1 ) The donor shall provide his or her urine specimen in the privacy of a room, stall, or otherwise partitioned area (private area) that allows for individual privacy, except if a directly observed collection is required, as described in § 26.115;
( 2 ) Except in the case of a directly observed collection, no one may go with the donor into the room or stall in which the donor will provide his or her specimen; and
( 3 ) The collector may set a reasonable time limit for voiding.
( b ) ( 1 ) The collector shall pay careful attention to the donor during the entire collection process, except as provided in § 26.109(b)(1), to observe any conduct that indicates an attempt to subvert the testing process (*e.g.,* tampering with a specimen; having a substitute urine specimen in plain view; attempting to bring an adulterant, urine substitute, heating element, and/or temperature measurement device into the room, stall, or private area used for urination). If any such conduct is detected, the collector shall document a description of the conduct on the Federal CCF or through another documentation method consistent with the collection procedures of the licensee or other entity, and contact FFD program management to determine whether a directly observed collection is required, as described in § 26.115.
( 2 ) If a hydration monitor is used to observe a donor during the § 26.109(b)(1) hydration process, this individual shall immediately inform the collector of any donor conduct that may indicate an attempt to subvert the testing process (*e.g.,* donor leaves the collection site, donor refuses to follow instructions).
( c ) After the donor has provided the urine specimen and submitted it to the collector, the donor shall be permitted to wash his or her hands. The collector shall inspect the toilet bowl and room or stall in which the donor voided to identify any evidence of a subversion attempt, and then flush the toilet.
( d ) If a refusal to test is determined at any point during the specimen collection process, the collector shall do the following: ( 1 ) Inform the donor that a refusal to test has been determined;
( 2 ) Terminate the collection process;
( 3 ) Document a description of the refusal to test on the Federal CCF or through another documentation method consistent with the collection procedures of the licensee or other entity;
( 4 ) Discard any urine specimen(s) provided by the donor, unless the specimen was collected for a post-event test under § 26.31(c)(3); and
( 5 ) Immediately inform the FFD program manager.
[73 FR 17176, Mar. 31, 2008, as amended at 87 FR 71457, Nov. 22, 2022]
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2007-1827.

#### State v. Lothes.

Portage App. No. 2006-P-0086, 2007-Ohio-4266. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Portage County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

*1419It is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
exv10w85






Exhibit 10.85




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

PATRIOT RISK MANAGEMENT, INC. 2010 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN



RESOLVED, that Sections 5(a) and (b) of the Patriot Risk Management, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan
be and they hereby are revised to read as follows:





(a) General Limitations. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 17 of the
Plan, the maximum number of Shares reserved for issuance in connection with Awards under the
Plan is 2,620,130 Shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 17 of the Plan, the
maximum number of Shares reserved for issuance as Incentive Stock Options under the Plan is
2,620,130 Shares.




(b) Individual Limitations. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 17 of the
Plan:




	 	(i)	 	the maximum number of Shares with respect to which Options and
Stock Appreciation Rights may be granted to any individual during any one
calendar year is 1,500,000 Shares; and
	 
	 	(ii)	 	in no event may Qualified Performance-Based Awards be granted
to a single Participant in any 12-month period (i) in respect of more than
1,500,000 Shares (if the Award is denominated in Shares) or (ii) having a
maximum payment with a value greater than $1,000,000 (if the Award is
denominated in other than Shares).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6117

JAMES L. JACK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN W. WOJCIK; CHARLIE T. DEANE; RON S.

CHRISTOFANO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-98-633)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 20, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James L. Jack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint

for his failure to either pay the filing fee or consent to collections being made from his prison trust fund. Appellant’s informal brief discusses only the substance of his complaint. We

therefore dismiss his appeal as frivolous. 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
#### § 431.4 Procedures, interpretations, and policies for consideration of new or revised energy conservation standards and test procedures for commercial/industrial equipment.

The procedures, interpretations, and policies for consideration of new or revised energy conservation standards and test procedures set forth in appendix A to subpart C of part 430 of this chapter shall apply to the consideration of new or revised energy conservation standards and test procedures considered for adoption under this part.

[85 FR 8711, Feb. 14, 2020]
#### § 431.156 Energy and water conservation standards and effective dates.

(a) Each commercial clothes washer manufactured on or after January 8, 2013, and before January 1, 2018, shall have a modified energy factor no less than and a water factor no greater than:

| Equipment class | Modified energy factor (MEF), *cu. ft./kWh/cycle* | Water factor (WF), *gal./cu. ft./cycle* |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Top-Loading | 1.60 | 8.5 |
| Front-Loading | 2.00 | 5.5 |

(b) Each commercial clothes washer manufactured on or after January 1, 2018 shall have a modified energy factor no less than and an integrated water factor no greater than:

| Equipment class | Modified energy factor (MEFJ2), *cu. ft./kWh/cycle* | Integrated Water factor (IWF), *gal./cu. ft./cycle* |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Top-Loading | 1.35 | 8.8 |
| Front-Loading | 2.00 | 4.1 |

[[76 FR 69123](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/76-FR-69123), Nov. 8, 2011, as amended at [79 FR 74541](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/79-FR-74541), Dec. 15, 2014; [81 FR 20529](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-20529), Apr. 8, 2016]
Exhibit 32



Certification

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FNB Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the Corporation), does hereby
certify that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 8, 2005 |  | /s/ Michael C. Miller  
|                       |  | Michael C. Miller      
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                       | 
|Date: November 8, 2005 |  | /s/ Jerry A. Little    
|                       |  | Jerry A. Little        
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a
separate disclosure document.
2007-2063.

#### Wright v. Thomas.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Jessie B. Wright. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 309 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 309

Expressing the importance of immediately reopening the famous Beartooth 
 All-American Highway from Red Lodge, Montana, to Yellowstone National 
                            Park in Wyoming.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2005

Mr. Pombo submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
      Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the importance of immediately reopening the famous Beartooth 
 All-American Highway from Red Lodge, Montana, to Yellowstone National 
                            Park in Wyoming.

Whereas on March 1, 1872, Yellowstone was established as the world's first 
        national park;
Whereas Yellowstone National Park encompasses over 2 million acres and is one of 
        America's Crown Jewels of the National Park System;
Whereas over 2.8 million people visit Yellowstone National Park annually to 
        admire its world famous geysers, hot springs, and remarkable wildlife, 
        and to hike its more than 950 miles of backcountry trails;
Whereas on May 16-17, 2005, a major mudslide bisected the scenic Beartooth 
        Highway in 6 sections requiring visitors from Montana to undertake a 
        detour to the Northeast Entrance to Yellowstone National Park;
Whereas the scenic Beartooth Highway provides on average 190,000 visitors 
        annually easy access to the Northeast Entrance to Yellowstone National 
        Park;
Whereas the scenic Beartooth Highway has been recognized as one of the most 
        scenic drives in the United States; and
Whereas the scenic Beartooth Highway is the economic artery for the citizens of 
        the gateway communities of Red Lodge, Cooke City, and Silver Gate, 
        Montana: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the critical importance of ensuring 
        unfettered access to visitors of Yellowstone National Park and 
        preserving the economy of Red Lodge, Montana; and
            (2) urges the President to take, without hesitation, all 
        necessary actions to assist the Governor of Montana in 
        reopening, as quickly as possible, the scenic Beartooth Highway 
        that provides access to Yellowstone National Park.
                                 <all>
```
Subpart 2024.1 - Protection of Individual

Privacy

Parent topic: PART 2024 - PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

2024.103 Procedures.

The provisions at 10 CFR part 9, subpart B, Privacy Act Regulations, are applicable to the

maintenance or disclosure of information for a system of records on individuals.
222 So.2d 883

#### Curtis DESORMEAUX v. AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 49819.

June 9, 1969.

In re: Curtis Desormeaux applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 220 So.2d 170.

The ápplication is. denied. We construe the order of the Court of Appeal to dismiss the suspensive appeal. The devolutive appeal remains in effect and that Court has reserved to plaintiff the right to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction.
PART 18 – EMERGENCY ACQUISITIONS

SUBPART 18.2 – EMERGENCY ACQUISITION FLEXIBILITIES

18.270 Head of contracting activity determinations.

SUBPART 18.2 – EMERGENCY ACQUISITION FLEXIBILITIES

18.270 Head of contracting activity determinations.

The DLA Acquisition Director has delegated authority to the contracting officer to make the

determinations at—

(a) 18.201(b) and (c);

(b) 18.202(a)-(d); and

(c) 18.204(b).
#### Racine Fuel Company, Appellee, v. Dr. O. A. Rawlins and Julia Nankervis, Defendants. Appeal of Dr. O. A. Rawlins, Appellant.

Gen No. 41,016.

opinion filed October 1, 1940;

supplemental opinion filed and rehearing denied October 21, 1940.

Stevens & Carrier, for appellant; Geo. M. Stevens, and Geo. M. Stevens, Jr., of counsel; Cecil C. Erickson, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice Matchett.

“Not to be published in full.”
PGI 226.1 -INDIAN INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Parent topic: PGI Part 226 - OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS

PGI 226.103 Procedures.

(1) Submit a request for funding of the Indian incentive to—

Director, the Office of Small Business Programs

201 12th Street South, Suite 406

Arlington, VA 22202-5411.

(2) Upon receipt of funding from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Industrial

Policy), Office of Small Business Programs, issue a contract modification to add the Indian incentive

funding for payment of the contractor’s request for adjustment as described in the clause at DFARS

252.226-7001, Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native

Hawaiian Small Business Concerns.
###### Editorial Note on Part 35

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 35.7 FDA, other Federal, and State requirements.

Nothing in this part relieves the licensee from complying with applicable FDA, other Federal, and State requirements governing radioactive drugs or devices.