alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 601.100 Conditions on use of funds. ( a ) No appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative ageement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a certification, set forth in appendix A, that the person has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or a cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if such person has made or has agreed to make any payment using nonappropriated funds (to include profits from any covered Federal action), which would be prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section if paid for with appropriated funds.
( d ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a statement, set forth in appendix A, whether that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
( e ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
#### § 431.221 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains energy conservation requirements for traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules, pursuant to Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 516 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 516

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3763) to reinstate the 
application of the wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act to Federal 
           contracts in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2005

Mr. Melancon submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3763) to reinstate the 
application of the wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act to Federal 
           contracts in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

    Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall without intervention of any point of order consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 3763) to reinstate the application of the wage 
requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act to Federal contracts in areas 
affected by Hurricane Katrina. The bill shall be considered as read. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and 
(2) one motion to recommit.
                                 <all>
```
12/29/2011 12:15 FAX 2024935142 FAA - QMS (^OOl/OOS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARDs'GS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RECEIVED 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. DEC 2 8 2011 

Complainant. FAA Docket nt^^^^^N Q DOCKE T 

ELITE AIR, [^ 

Respondent, 5C>(| - (/^5 ^ 

\. Admitted. 

II 

2. Admitted. 

3. Admitted. 

4. Admitted. 

5. Denies that a FAA rqjrescnialive inspected N444CW on September 12, 2010. 

(a) Denies that the action taken by the FAA representative on September 12, 

2010 revealed that Elite Air operated N444CW on seven Part 135 flights 

between June 15, 21010 and August 12, 2010. 

^ - , tj — 

^ -1- 1 ~ ^ 

ill 

ANSWER ^ "^ 

Elite Air, Inc., ("Elite"), by and through it's undersigned counsel, hereby files it's 

Answer, pursuant to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice, (14 C.F.R. 13.209) and states: 
2/29/201 1 12.15 FAX 202a935M 2 FAA ^ DMS [2iO02/003 

(b) Denies that prior to each 135 flight conducted on N444CW that the pilo! 

did not conduct a preflight inspection of the airplane as required by Elite 

Air's General Operations Manuel. 

6. Denies that Elite Air'ii General Operations Manuel was not complied with during 

all 135 flights conducted by Ehte Air on N444CW. 

7. Denies that Elite Air violated Section 135.21(a) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. 

8. Denies, 

9. Denies. 

10. Further answering. Respondent alleges: 

(a) Upon information and belief no agent of the Complainant ever re\'iewed 

original tlight mdnifests (Forms EAl-301) relating to the relevant flights 

and instead relied on copies that were not obtained from Elite Air and 

cannot be authenticated. 

(b) Respondent retains flight manifests (FORTES EAl-301) for 30 days as 

required by its General Operations Manuel and the FAA regulations. 

(c) By the time Complainant made the allegations against the Respondent the 

relevant flight nianifests were no longer available. 

(d) Even if Complainant could establish that the relevant flights were 

conducted under part 135 and that the PIC failed to enter the inspection 

due dates and times on Fonn EAl-301, the PTC substantially complied 

with Elite Air's General Operations Manuel in that he did conduct the pre 

flight inspection and determined that no inspection would be over flown. 
12/29/201 1 121 5 FAX 2024335U 2 FAA - QMS 2|003/00 3 

(e) The flight on June 15, 2010 was a check ride conducted by an FAA 

mspector and was not a 135 flight. 

Respectflilly submitted this _n..__ day of December. 2011. 

B. Gray GibW, Esq. 

Attorney for Elite Air, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by 

Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested to the following: 

Hearing Docket Clerk (original plus one copy) 

FAA, AGC-430 Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue^ SW 

Washington DC 20591 

Ryan Landeni 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Post Office Box 20636 

Atlanta GA 30320 

B. GrayGibbsTSqT 

Attorney for Elite Air, Inc.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Paul C. Honda, 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 Honda Auto Receivables 2013-1
Owner Trust (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 unaffiliated party MUFG Union Bank, N.A.



Date: June 10, 2015





|/s/ Paul C. Honda                                                                                                                                                       | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Paul C. Honda
        Vice President and Assistant Secretary
        of American Honda Finance Corporation
        (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |
Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 5 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 5 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 2 of 2
# Subpart 2033.1 - Protests

**Parent topic:**PART 2033 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS

## 2033.103 Protests to the agency.

Protests to the agency are first considered by the contracting officer. In accordance with FAR 33.103(d)(4), the protestor may appeal the contracting officer's decision by delivering or providing a written request to the agency Director, Division of Contracts or Property Management, or designee, to conduct an independent review of the Contracting Officer's decision.
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 162 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  House Calendar No. 13
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 162

                          [Report No. 109-20]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1334) to amend title 28, 
  United States Code, to provide for the removal to Federal court of 
    certain State court cases involving the rights of incapacitated 
                    persons, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2005

   Mr. Gingrey, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1334) to amend title 28, 
  United States Code, to provide for the removal to Federal court of 
    certain State court cases involving the rights of incapacitated 
                    persons, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 1334) to amend title 28, United States Code, to 
provide for the removal to Federal court of certain State court cases 
involving the rights of incapacitated persons, and for other purposes. 
The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill to final adoption without intervening 
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.




                                                  House Calendar No. 13

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 162

                          [Report No. 109-20]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1334) to amend title 28, 
  United States Code, to provide for the removal to Federal court of 
    certain State court cases involving the rights of incapacitated 
                    persons, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 16, 2005

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANTS 10-QSB AS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       6,518,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,953,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (44,638)
<INVENTORY>                                    719,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,922,437
<PP&E>                                       4,699,089
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,576,863)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,953,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,646,769
<BONDS>                                         31,936
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       361,379
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,214,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,953,587
<SALES>                                     16,858,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,858,136
<CGS>                                       11,634,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,634,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,959,743
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               176,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (911,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (365,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (546,656)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (546,656)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 209 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any Social Security 

reform legislation should include a ‘‘Community Bank Option’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2005 

Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. FEENEY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

any Social Security reform legislation should include a 

‘‘Community Bank Option’’. 

Whereas the Congress is considering Social Security reform 

that allows workers to invest a portion of their Social Security monies into personal savings accounts; 

Whereas such accounts should include an option that permits 

workers to invest their monies in products, such as certificates of deposit, offered by banks and similar financial 

institutions; 

Whereas employees of Galveston County, Texas, contribute to 

a personal retirement account that resembles a bank option (which may be referred to as a ‘‘Community Bank 

Option’’) that has earned interest rates that average 6.5 
2 

•HRES 209 IH 

percent in annual returns, with some returns of up to 

15.5 percent; 

Whereas the employees of Galveston County bear virtually no 

risk with these accounts and, in return, receive guaranteed rates of return; 

Whereas three counties in Texas have allowed county employees to take an approach similar to a Community Bank 

Option for more than 20 years; 

Whereas the State of Florida successfully restructured retirement opportunities for eligible Florida State employees 

by allowing personal accounts that have proven successful 

in maximizing participants’ long-term savings and securing the State’s pension program; 

Whereas certificates of deposit and other products offered by 

banks are FDIC-insured and provide a very low risk investment option for workers; 

Whereas monies deposited in an option at a local community 

bank, savings association, or credit union will be used in 

that community again in the form of small business loans 

and home mortgages; and 

Whereas the Community Bank Option will help neighborhoods and communities throughout the United States to 

grow and develop: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that a Community Bank Option should be in3 cluded in any Social Security reform legislation. 

Æ
1 

### Ton, Huan

From: Kasakevich, Jean (JC) [JCKasakevich@dow.com]

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 4:07 PM

To: Burt, Stephanie (S)

Subject: FW: DOW CD for EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0182

As just discussed...

Thanks and regards,

Jean Kasakevich

Polyurethanes and Formulated Systems

From: Semeniuk, Michael [ mailto:Semeniuk.Michael@epa.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:35 PM

To: Kasakevich, Jean (JC)

Subject: DOW CD for EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0182

As we discussed in our conversation of 7/10/2013, we at the EPA Docket Center are unable to open and/or add the

following documents from your CD to the docket:

Folder: Adhesives/Technical Data Sheets

1. Mor

‐ Free L 75

‐ 149 C

‐ 132

‐ 2 TDS.pdf

2. Mor

‐ Free L75

‐ 164

‐ C

‐ 411 Controlled Tear TDS.pdf

3. Mor

‐ Free L 75

‐ 164 C

‐ 78F TDS.pdf

4. Mor

‐ Free L 75

‐ 164 BHT

‐ Modified C

‐ 144 TDS.pdf

5. Mor

‐ Free L 75

‐ 164 C132

‐ 2 TDS.pdf

6. Robond PLA

‐ WB CR WB

‐ PLA TDS.pdf

Folder: Adhesives/Technology

– Product Review/CURE/ADCOTE 76R36B w COREACTANT 9L7, Diisocyanate

Information, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, sent 10

‐ 11

‐ 2012_files

1. filelist.xml

2. image001.gif

3. themedata.thmx

Please e

‐ mail replacement files to me and I will process them. Note that .xml, .gif and .thmx files cannot be posted to

regulations.gov. Thank you.

Michael Semeniuk

OCSPP & OSWER Docket Manager

EPA Docket Center, Operated by ASRC Primus

202

‐ 566

‐ 0219

semeniuk.michael@epa.gov

3337E EPA West, MC 28221T
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FARMERS TELECOMMUNICATIONS )

COOPERATIVE, INC., )

 )

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-cv-00790-WC

 )

v. )

 )

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, )

INC., et. al, )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the Motion For Admission Pro Hac Vice filed by Leigh Anne

Hodge filed on 11 January 2007 (Doc. # 13) on behalf of Jana Eisinger, and it appearing that

Jana Eisinger is a member in good standing of the United States District Court for the

District of Colorado and the Supreme Court of Colorado, it is 

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

DONE this 12th day of January, 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 14 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 14 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
1315.606-2 Evaluation.

(a) If the contracting officer determines, upon initial review, that the unsolicited proposal meets all

criteria in FAR 15.606-1, the contracting officer will acknowledge receipt of the proposal, coordinate

evaluation with the program office, and provide to the submitter an estimated date that evaluation of

the proposal is expected to be completed. The contracting officer shall transmit the proposal to the

program office for evaluation, marking it in accord with FAR 15.609(d). If the estimated date for

completion of the evaluation cannot be met, the submitter should be informed in a timely manner

and provided with a revised evaluation completion date.

(b) The evaluating office shall not reproduce or disseminate the proposal to other offices without the

consent of the contracting officer. If the evaluating office requires additional information from the

proposer, the evaluator shall request the information through the contracting officer, who will

contact the proposer. The evaluator shall not communicate directly with the proposer.

(c) Evaluators shall notify the contracting officer of their recommendations when the evaluation is

complete. Following evaluation, the contracting officer shall proceed in accord with FAR 15.607.

Parent topic: Subpart 1315.6 - Unsolicited Proposals