alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Union Bank, N.A.







Date: June 10, 2014







/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)
#### Albert F. Mulligan, Doing Business as Mulligan Trenching Service, et al., Appellants, v. E. Dent Lackey et al., Constituting the Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency, et al., Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: When this article 78 proceeding was before us previously (33 A D 2d 991) we directed that answers be filed and ordered that a trial of the issues be had forthwith. This has been accomplished and the substantive issues are now before us for review. Appellant’s contention that the award of the contract to respondent Albert Elia Building Company, Inc., on October 28, 1969 was in violation of section 801 of the General Municipal Law, finds no support in the record. When an earlier contract was awarded *733on August 28, 1969, Fred Sebastian who was an officer of the successful bidder, was also a member of the respondent Urban Renewal Agency. As a consequence the contract was voided and when the present contract was offered for bid and let, he was no longer a member of the agency and, of course, had no powers or duties with respect to the award of the contract. Of compelling significance is the fact that the contract under consideration so substantially differs from the one let in August that there can be no question of the inapplicability of the prohibition contained in section 801 of the General Municipal Law. Of major consequence and interest are such changes between the two contracts as (1) a requirement that the contract be completed within 150 days instead of the former 180 days (together with a $500 per day penalty for any delay), (2) a change in the *“*influence line ” of an adjacent building requiring additionally delicate blasting operations and the encasement in concrete of 145 feet of 36-inch pipe, not previously necessary, (3) changes in quantities of at least 16 items, (4) an increase in wage rates payable under the new contract and (5) a substantial change in the amount to be paid under the contract. It cannot be thus said that Sebastian’s former position on the agency, which terminated well prior to the letting of this second contract, created any conflict of interest proscribed by the section (General Municipal Law, § 801). We conclude, therefore, that the record clearly supports the determination presented for review, and, upon the sole ground and reason herein assigned, we affirm the judgment dismissing the petition. All concur, Witmer, J. in result only. (Appeal from judgment and order of Niagara Trial Term, dismissing petition to annul awarding of contract.) Present—Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli and Henry, JJ.
#### § 431.321 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains energy conservation requirements for metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures, pursuant to Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.

[75 FR 10966, Mar. 9, 2010]
# L_2023173EN.01002301.xml

| 6.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/23

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 128/2020

of 25 September 2020

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1387]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1170 of 16 July 2020 on design, construction and performance requirements and testing standards for marine equipment and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1397 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1170 of 16 July 2020 on design, construction and performance requirements and testing standards for marine equipment and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1397 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1170 repeals Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1397 (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1170 repeals Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1397 (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text of point 3 (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1397) of Chapter XXXII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement shall be replaced by the following:

‘
  32020 R 1170: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1170 of 16 July 2020 on design, construction and performance requirements and testing standards for marine equipment and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1397 (OJ L 264, 12.8.2020, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1170 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 September 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 264, 12.8.2020, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 237, 13.9.2019, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
§ 435.504 The COSTSAFR Program. ( a ) The COSTSAFR Program (Version 3.0) provides a computerized calculation procedure to determine the most effective set of energy conservation measures, selected from among the measures included within the Program that will produce the practicable optimum life cycle cost for a type of residential building in a specific geographic location. The most effective set of energy conservation measures is expressed as a total point score that serves as the energy consumption goal.
( b ) The COSTSAFR Program (Version 3.0) also prints out a point system that identifies a wide array of different energy conservation measures indicating how many points various levels of each measure would contribute to reaching the total point score of the energy consumption goal. This enables a Federal agency to use the energy consumption goal and the point system in the design and procurement procedures so that designers and builders can pick and choose among different combinations of energy conservation measures to meet or exceed the total point score required to meet the energy consumption goal.
( c ) The COSTSAFR Program (Version 3.0) operates on a micro-computer system that uses the MS DOS operating system and is equipped with an 8087 co-processor.
( d ) The COSTSAFR Program (Version 3.0) may be obtained from:
National Technical Information Service; Department of Commerce; Springfield, Virginia 22161; (202) 487-4600
[53 FR 32545, Aug. 25, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 3772, Jan. 31, 1991. Redesignated at 79 FR 61571, Oct. 14, 2014]
§ 431.76 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces. ( a ) *Scope.* This section prescribes the test requirements used to measure the energy efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces with a rated maximum input of 225,000 Btu per hour or more.
( b ) *Testing and calculations* — ( 1 ) *Thermal efficiency.* Test in accordance with appendix A to subpart D of this part when making representations of thermal efficiency.
( 2 ) *Thermal efficiency two.* Test in accordance with appendix B to subpart D of this part when making representations of thermal efficiency two.
[88 FR 36234, June 2, 2023]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

SOUTHEASTERN BOLL WEEVIL )

ERADICATION FOUNDATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv756-MHT

) 

BOLL WEEVIL ERADICATION )

FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA, )

INC., and TOMMY IRVIN, in )

his capacity as Trustee )

of Boll Weevil Eradication )

Foundation of Georgia, )

Inc., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to appear pro hac vice

(doc. no. 21) is granted.

DONE, this the 17th day of November, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 22 Filed 11/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.25 Determination to prepare environmental impact statement or environmental assessment; eligibility for categorical exclusion.

Before taking a proposed action subject to the provisions of this subpart, the appropriate NRC staff director will determine on the basis of the criteria and classifications of types of actions in §§ 51.20, 51.21 and 51.22 of this subpart whether the proposed action is of the type listed in § 51.22(c) as a categorical exclusion or whether an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment should be prepared. An environmental assessment is not necessary if it is determined that an environmental impact statement will be prepared.
#### In re HORTON’S WILL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

In the matter of the application for ancillary letters testamentary on the last will and testament of George W. Horton, deceased.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, upon condition that appellant file her bond within 15 days after the service of the order to be entered herein, and notice of entry; otherwise, motion granted, with costs. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 18; 148 N. Y. Supp. 1121.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

)

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) 3:06-CV-761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

)

 

United States’s Motion to Release Documents

The United States respectfully requests that Court release to the Government the

certified documents with seals and ribbons, previously filed for the first and second

extradition requests in this case. See Doc. Nos. 1 & 8 (notice of filing). The United

States would like to review these documents at its office in preparation for the extradition

hearing next Wednesday, June 10, 2008, especially in light of some of Moreno-Vazquez’s

concerns regarding document legibility. 

These documents (or better copies of the originals if necessary) will be introduced

at the hearing. Redacted electronic versions of these documents continue to be available

on the Court’s CM/ECF system. See Doc. Nos. 6 & 8 (redacted exhibits attached to

notice). 

Respectfully submitted this 3rd of June, 2008,

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 27 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 1 of 2
131 Clayton Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

E-mail: christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on June 3, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing

to the following: Ben Elton Bruner. 

/s/ Christopher Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 27 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Milton Kanoff, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County, imposed July 24, 1979, upon his conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree, after a plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term with a maximum of 15 years and a minimum of 5 years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the maximum period of imprisonment to 10 years and the minimum to *3 Vs*years. As so modified, sentence affirmed. The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Gibbons, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRANT'S
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,885
<SECURITIES>                                   171
<RECEIVABLES>                                  773
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                       5,985
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     9,394
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,552)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,719
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               576
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   376
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
#### IRVIN, Appellant, v. OSWALD, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Paul H. Irvin against Charles Oswald.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### ADIKES et al., Appellants, v. LONG ISLAND R. Co., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 26, 1915.)

Action by John Adikes and another against the Long Island Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion for stay granted, on condition that appellants perfect their appeal, place the case" on the calendar for March 9th, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion denied, with $10 costs. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 49.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,727
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      469
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,442
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,933
<PP&E>                                          33,699
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,061
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,472
<SALES>                                         25,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,676
<CGS>                                           20,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,357)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,381)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,381)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
```

[109th Congress Public Law 343]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ343.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1868]]

Public Law 109-343
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in 
           McAllen, Texas, as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal 
           Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 13, 2006 -  [H.R. 2322]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

     The Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in McAllen, 
Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal 
Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

     Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kika de la Garza 
Federal Building''.

    Approved October 13, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2322:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 27, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
PGI 222.101-1 General.

The contracting officer shall obtain approval from the labor advisor before—

(1) Contacting a national office of a labor organization, a Government agency headquarters, or any

other organization on labor relations matters or disputes; or

(2) Making recommendations for plant seizure or injunctive action relating to potential or actual

work stoppages.

Parent topic: PGI 222.101 Labor relations.
Served: February 26, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Lijt] OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BRADLEY LAWRENCE GOOD 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0043 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

:?l 3.2 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013WP010008)has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

Ronnie A. Yo er 

Chief Administrative Law Jud 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000

1 

Michael Sha~non, Respondent's Counsel 

301 E. Colorado, Suite 320 

Pasadena, CA 91101 

Bradley Lawrence Good, Respondent 

385 E. Green St, #2611 

Pasadena, CA 91101 

TEL: 818-726-2101 

EMAIL: bgood@ourgroup.org 

ONE COPY 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel (A WP-7.6) 

Western Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0043 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 3:06cr204-MEF

) WO

HENRY ERIK YAPIAS )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the psychiatric report (Doc. # 40), filed June 12, 2007, and for

good cause, it is

ORDERED that a status conference by telephone is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on June

15, 2007. Counsel for the government is DIRECTED to set up the telephone conference call.

DONE, this 13th day of June, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 41 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 1 of 1
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0619

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM029AD

J41-24-043 --- 9/27/11

J41-24-043, R1 --- 1/16/12

J41-24-043, R2 --- 8/21/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008