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

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, 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 Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2020-1 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany 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. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement inall material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis 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 otherwisedisclosed 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: WilmingtonTrust, National Association. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer 
Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor

 

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Date: March 31, 2022**
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                          COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION
                             250 STEPHENSON HIGHWAY
                                 TROY, MI 48083
                                 August 27, 2003

Mr. Gerald E. Jones
9806 Colt Drive
Bahama, NC  27503

         RE:      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Dear Gerald:

         This letter addresses certain aspects of your employment terms not
addressed in your Employment Agreement with Collins & Aikman Corporation (the
"Company"), dated August 29, 2003. If you sign at the end of this letter and
return the signed copy to Collins & Aikman at the above address, to the
attention of Greg Tinnell, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, this letter
will amend your Employment Agreement.

         The terms of your Employment Agreement, the Supplemental Retirement
Income Plan ("SRIP"), and any other plan or program generally applicable to
employees of the Company will control in the event of a conflict with the terms
of this letter, except as specifically provided herein.

         If your employment terminates for any reason other than a termination
for Cause or your voluntary resignation, you will be credited with ten (10)
years of vesting credit toward Retirement and otherwise be deemed to be eligible
for Retirement, as defined under Paragraph 5 of Article II of the SRIP, as of
the date of such termination of employment. Such credit shall not affect the
amount of your service credit for purposes of calculating the amount of any
benefit under Article IV of the SRIP.

         You shall have available a perquisite account, not to exceed Twenty
Thousand Dollars ($20,000) per year. The Company shall provide you such
additional amounts as are necessary to cover your tax costs associated with such
perquisites.

                                                   COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION

                                                   By: /S/  David Stockman
                                                       -------------------------

                                                   Its: Chairman & CEO

                                                        /S/  Gerald E. Jones
                                                        ------------------------
                                                               Gerald E. Jones
§ 83.12 How will NIOSH notify petitioners, the Board, and the public of petitions that have been selected for evaluation? ( a ) NIOSH will notify the petitioner(s) in writing that it has selected the petition for evaluation. NIOSH will also provide the petitioner(s) with information on the steps of the evaluation and other processes required pursuant to these procedures.
( b ) NIOSH will combine separate petitions and evaluate them as a single petition if, at this or at any point in the evaluation process under §§ 83.13 and 83.14, NIOSH finds such petitions represent the same class of employees.
( c ) NIOSH will present petitions selected for evaluation to the Board with plans specific to evaluating each petition. Each evaluation plan will include the following elements: ( 1 ) An initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation conducted under § 83.13 or § 83.14; and
( 2 ) A list of activities for evaluating the radiation exposure potential of the class and the adequacy of existing records and information needed to conduct dose reconstructions for all class members under 42 CFR part 82.
( d ) NIOSH may initiate work to evaluate a petition immediately, prior to presenting the petition and evaluation plan to the Board.
( e ) NIOSH will publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public of its decision to evaluate a petition.
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.142 Air supply source; hand-operated or motor driven air blowers; Type A supplied-air respirators; minimum requirements. ( a ) Blowers shall be designed and constructed to deliver an adequate amount of air to the wearer with either direction of rotation, unless constructed to permit rotation in one direction only, and to permit the free entrance of air to the hose when the blower is not operated.
( b ) No multiple systems, whereby more than one user is supplied by one blower, will be approved, unless each hose line is connected directly to a manifold at the blower.
#### CHARLES I. STAGER v. THE UNITED STATES.

[57 C. Cls. 116; 262 U.S. 728.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the Supreme Court, on April 16, 1923, decided:

*Per curiam:*

*Affirmed,*on the authority of *Nicholas*v. *United States,*257 U. S. 71.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Raul S. McQuivey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Sutron Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a) all significant deficiencies in the design
or operation of internal controls which could adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal controls; and

6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.






Date:  November 12, 2004
By /s/ Raul S. McQuivey 		Raul S. McQuviey, Chairman of
						the Board of Directors
						and President
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3552 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3552

                  For the relief of Alayne Mae Watson.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 29, 1996

    Mr. Baker of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Alayne Mae Watson.

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

SECTION 1. ENTITLEMENT TO VETERANS' DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY 
              COMPENSATION BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of determining the eligibility of 
Alayne Mae Watson, of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for veterans' dependency 
and indemnity compensation benefits under chapter 13 of title 38, 
United States Code, Alayne Mae Watson shall be deemed to be the 
surviving spouse of James Michael Watson (social security number 467-
70-0150) notwithstanding her divorce from James Michael Watson.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) applies with respect to 
payments of dependency and indemnity compensation by the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs for months beginning after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1786 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1786

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that Federal employees 
  stationed in American Samoa shall be paid the same nonforeign area 
cost-of-living allowance as if stationed in Guam or the Commonwealth of 
                     the Northern Mariana Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2007

 Mr. Faleomavaega introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that Federal employees 
  stationed in American Samoa shall be paid the same nonforeign area 
cost-of-living allowance as if stationed in Guam or the Commonwealth of 
                     the Northern Mariana Islands.

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

SECTION 1. EQUAL TREATMENT FOR EMPLOYEES STATIONED IN AMERICAN SAMOA.

    (a) In General.--Section 5941 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) An employee stationed in American Samoa shall be paid the 
same allowance under subsection (a) as if stationed in Guam or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as of the first day of the first fiscal year beginning at 
least 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7672
KENNETH PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEWALL SMITH; L. BISHOP, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2312-HAR) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for general relief and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. We also affirm the district court's denial of Appellant's motion to vacate judgment. Phillips v. Smith , No. CA-94-2312-HAR (D. Md. Aug. 28, 1996; Sept. 25, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2077 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2077

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 20805 State Route 125 in Blue Creek, Ohio, as the ``George B. Lewis 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2007

Mrs. Schmidt (for herself, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Turner, Mr. Jordan of Ohio, 
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr. Hobson, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kucinich, 
 Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, Ms. Sutton, Mr. LaTourette, Ms. Pryce 
  of Ohio, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and Mr. Space) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 20805 State Route 125 in Blue Creek, Ohio, as the ``George B. Lewis 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. GEORGE B. LEWIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 20805 State Route 125 in Blue Creek, Ohio, shall be known 
and designated as the ``George B. Lewis Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``George B. 
Lewis Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JESSIE TRAMONT GILMORE, a/k/a J-Pooh, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00108-WDK-FBS-1; 4:06-cv-00039-WDK-FBS)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie Tramont Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Ne wport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Jessie Tramont Gilmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilmore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
§ 52i.12 What happens if a grantee fails to administer the research endowment grant in accordance with applicable regulations? ( a ) The Director, after giving notice and an opportunity for a hearing, may authorize the termination of a grant awarded and/or recovery of funds under this part during the 20-year period if the grantee: ( 1 ) Withdraws or spends any part of the endowment fund corpus in violation of this part;
( 2 ) Spends any portion of the endowment fund income not permitted to be spent in this part;
( 3 ) Fails to invest the endowment fund corpus in accordance with the investment standards set forth in this part;
( 4 ) Fails to meet the requirements in § 52i.7; or
( 5 ) Otherwise fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the award.
( b ) Recovery of funds may include up to the amount of endowment awards plus any income earned.
Editorial Note on Part 460
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

§ 460.24 Limit on number of PACE program agreements. ( a ) *Numerical limit.* Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, CMS does not permit the number of PACE organizations with which agreements are in effect under this part or under section 9412(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, to exceed the following: ( 1 ) As of August 5, 1997—40.
( 2 ) As of each succeeding August 5, the numerical limit for the preceding year plus 20, without regard to the actual number of agreements in effect on a previous anniversary date. (For example, the limit is 60 on August 5, 1998 and 80 on August 5, 1999.)
( b ) *Exception.* The numerical limit does not apply to a private, for-profit PACE organization that meets the following conditions: ( 1 ) Is operating under a demonstration project waiver under section 1894(h) and 1934(h) of the Act.
( 2 ) Was operating under a waiver and subsequently qualifies for PACE organization status in accordance with sections 1894(a)(3)(B)(ii) and 1934(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1960 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1960

  To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to allow community 
  reinvestment credit for investments and other financial support to 
      enable veterans to purchase residential homes or to assist 
   organizations with the establishment of housing opportunities and 
                assisted living facilities for veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2007

   Mr. Lynch (for himself and Mr. Al Green of Texas) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to allow community 
  reinvestment credit for investments and other financial support to 
      enable veterans to purchase residential homes or to assist 
   organizations with the establishment of housing opportunities and 
                assisted living facilities for veterans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``A Home for the Brave Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CREDITS FOR CERTAIN SUPPORT FOR 
              VETERANS.

    Section 804 of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 
2903) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Homes for Veterans.--In assessing and taking into account, 
under subsection (a), the record of a financial institution, the 
appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall consider, as a 
factor, capital investments, low interest loans, loan participation, 
technical assistance, and grants by the institution to support or 
enable--
            ``(1) any veteran (as such term is defined in section 101 
        of title 38, United States Code) to purchase a home for use as 
        the principal residence of the veteran; and
            ``(2) any entity that is establishing housing opportunities 
        or assisted living facilities for veterans to carry out such 
        activities.''.
                                 <all>
```