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


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)


OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





I, Thomas A. Feil, 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 Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2023-1 (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. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements 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: Wilmington Trust, National Association.





Date: March 26, 2024


By:/s/ THOMAS A. FEILName:*Thomas A. FeilTitle:PresidentCapital One Auto Receivables, LLC* Thomas A. Feil is the senior officer in charge of securitization of Capital One Auto Receivables, LLC
**EXHIBIT 15.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.333-113687 on Form S-8 of Claxson Interactive Group, Inc. of our report datedJuly 15, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ClaxsonInteractive Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relatingto the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and relating to achange in accounting principle for goodwill).
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Miami, Florida
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 10, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10605 Summary Calendar

SU-INN HO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHARLES MILLER, Chairman of Board of Regents The University of Texas System; ROBERT E. WITT, President The University of Texas at Arlington; PHILIP COHEN, dean of the Graduate School The University of Texas at Arlington; RICHARD B. TIMMONS, Chairman of the Department of Chemistry Department Professor of the Chemistry Department The University of Texas at Arlington; KRISHNAN RAJESHWAR, Professor of the Chemistry Department The University of Texas at Arlington; REED J. BLAU, Assistant Professor of the Chemistry Department The University of Texas at Arlington a resident of Cache County, Utah, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-85-A

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Su-Inn Ho appeals the summary judgment in favor of the defendants on her civil rights action dismissing her civil rightsNo. 03-10605 -2-

** Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983). and tort claims regarding her dismissal from the doctoral chemistry program at the University of Texas at Arlington and the misdeeds of the individual defendants during a prior state lawsuit challenging her failure to obtain her doctoral degree. To the extent that Ho is challenging the proceedings in the prior state court action, those claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s judgment, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the allegations under the Rooker

Feldman ** doctrine. Ho’s attempts to challenge the propriety of the ruling in her first civil action by the federal district court is also improper. To the extent that Ho is repeating her challenges to her dismissal from the university’s doctoral program, her claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata

. See Kentucky v. Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Miss. , 701 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir.1983)(en banc). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method (NUREG/CR-6883, INL/EXT-05-00509)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6883 (PDF - 1.35 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**September 2004**Published:**August 2005

**Prepared by:** D.I. Gertman, H.S. Blackman, J.L. Marble, J.C. Byers, C.L. Smith

 Idaho National Laboratory P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Operated by Battelle Energy Alliance for the U.S. Department of Energy

P. O’Reilly, NRC Project Officer

**Prepared for:** Division of Risk Analysis and Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001 

NRC Job Code W6355

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In support of the Accident Sequence Precursor Program (ASP), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in conjunction with the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), in 1994 developed the Accident Sequence Precursor Standardized Plant Analysis Risk Model (ASP/SPAR) human reliability analysis (HRA) method, which was used in the development of nuclear power plant (NPP) models. Based on experience gained in field-testing, this method was updated in 1999 and renamed SPAR-H, for Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis method. Since that time, NRC staff analysts have been using this method to perform their risk-informed regulatory activities, such as determining the risk significance of inspection findings in Phase 3 of the Significance Determination Process, developing an integrated risk-informed performance measure in support of the reactor oversight process, and systematically screening and analyzing operating experience data in order to identify events/conditions that are precursors to severe accident sequences. As a result of implementation by staff analysts, and from other experience gained at the INL in applying the method in human reliability analysis (HRA), a number of needed improvements to definitions, terms, and concepts were identified. In 2003, to enhance the general utility of the SPAR-H method and to make it more widely available, the method was updated and reviewed for its applicability to low-power and shutdown applications. During this review, an approach to uncertainty representation was outlined, based on the beta distribution. Additional detail regarding human error probability (HEP) dependency assignment was also made available.

This document presents the current version of the SPAR-H method, along with guidance, definitions, improvements in representing uncertainty, and increased detail regarding dependency assignment for HEP calculations. This report also contains comparisons between this and other contemporary HRA approaches and findings specific to application of the method to low power and shutdown events.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1686 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1686

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the limitation on 
the carryover of excess corporate charitable contributions by regulated 
                           public utilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2017

Mr. Paulsen (for himself and Mr. Thompson of California) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the limitation on 
the carryover of excess corporate charitable contributions by regulated 
                           public utilities.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ON CARRYOVER OF EXCESS CHARITABLE 
              CONTRIBUTIONS BY REGULATED PUBLIC UTILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 170(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Special rule for regulated public 
                utilities.--In the case of a corporation that is a 
                regulated public utility (as defined in section 
                7701(a)(33)), or an affiliated group of which such a 
                regulated public utility is a part, subparagraph (A) 
                shall be applied by substituting `20 succeeding taxable 
                years' for `5 succeeding taxable years' and by 
                substituting `each of the second through twentieth' for 
                `the second, third, fourth, or fifth'.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to excess contributions which are deductible under section 
170(d)(2)(A) of such Code in succeeding taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
The HONORABLE RICHARD G . KOPF, United States District Judge for the 1 District of Nebraska. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2797

___________ Robert J. Jones, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Jack Helin, City Administrator, City * Appeal from the United States Hall, Central City, NE; Cal Lepp, * District Court for the Mayor, Central City, NE; Dennis * District of Nebraska. Wagner, Chief of Police, Central City, * NE; Cliff Mesner, City Attorney, * [UNPUBLISHED] Central City, NE; City of Central City, * City Council; Unknown Does, 1 to 99, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 7, 1998 Filed: January 12, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert J. Jones appeals from the district court & s 1 dis missal of his complaint under Federal Rule of Civi l-2-

Procedure 12(b)(1). After careful review of the recor d and the-3-

parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest:CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# MELCOR Computer Code Manuals (NUREG/CR-6119)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
Exhibit 8.1



List of Principal Subsidiaries



|                                     |  |                            |  | 
|------------------------------------ |  | -------------------------- |  | 
|Name                                 |  | Place of Incorporation     |  | 
|                                     |  |                           
|ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES INC.            |  | Republic of China          |  | 
|ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (H.K.) Limited  |  | Hong Kong                  |  | 
|Modern Mind Technology Limited       |  | British Virgin Islands     |  | 
|ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Shanghai) LTD. |  | Peoples Republic of China |  | 
|ThaiLin Semiconductor Corp.          |  | Republic of China          |  | 
|CHANTEK ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.         |  | Republic of China          |  | 
|ChipMOS Logic TECHNOLOGIES INC.      |  | Republic of China          |  |
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1999

# NRC Proposes to Certify Westinghouse Electric Company's AP600 Reactor Design

----

----

No. 99-100 May 14, 1999

**NRC PROPOSES TO CERTIFY WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY'S AP600 REACTOR DESIGN**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to certify the AP600 standard plant design developed by the Westinghouse Electric Company. The certification would be the third to be issued under the NRC's new licensing process for standard design certification and would be valid for 15 years.

The public is invited to submit comments on the proposed design certification rule, the AP600 design control document submitted by Westinghouse which has been incorporated into the NRC rule, and the environmental assessment of the AP600 design. Interested parties also may request an informal hearing. Both comments and hearing requests on the proposed rule change should be filed within 75 days of publication of a notice on the AP600 which will be published shortly in the Federal Register.

Last fall, the NRC issued a final design approval for the Westinghouse AP600 plant, completing the staff's technical review of the application for design certification received in 1992. This step permitted the staff to begin the administrative, or rulemaking, phase.

The AP600 design is for a nuclear power plant that would be capable of producing 600 megawatts of electricity. The plant, which can be assembled from modular components, features enhanced safety systems that rely on gravity and pressure differentials to safely shut the reactor down or mitigate the effects of an accident. It is designed for a 60-year operating life.

If certified by the Commission, a utility that wishes to build and operate a new nuclear power plant could choose to use the design and reference it in an application for a license. Safety issues within the scope of the certified design would not be subject to litigation, although site-specific environmental impacts associated with building and operating the plant at a particular location would be.

Future applicants for a license could make plant-specific changes to portions of the AP600 standard design by following the procedures set out in the design certification rule. The applicant would be required to maintain records of all such changes until the license is terminated.

No application for a license using the AP600 standard design has been filed with the NRC.

Written comments as well as hearing requests on the proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 52 should be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications staff. Comments may also be submitted via the NRC's electronic rulemaking website at http://www.nrc.gov. Select "rulemaking" from the tool bar and then "rulemaking forum." In addition to NRC, a copy of each hearing request must be sent by overnight mail to Brian A. McIntyre, Manager, Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing, Westinghouse Electric Co., P.O.B. 355, Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6713** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. ELIGIA JUNIOR MARTIN, a/k/a Shorty Boy , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville
. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. ( 4:06

- cr - 00049

- jlk

- mfu

- 3 ; 4:10

- cv - 80233

- jlk

mfu )

Submitted : October 19, 2010 Decided: October 27, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judge s.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Eligia Junior Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eligia Junior Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a pr isoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 32 2, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. S lack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin 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 materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
No. 76-248.

#### Hughes *v.*Dempsey-Tegeler & Co., Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6623
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARGARET F. SPENCER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-75, CA-96-56-2) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret F. Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. David Glenn Barger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no revers ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Spencer , Nos. CR-94-75; CA-96-56-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 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
#### Paul Waner, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 542]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered December 10, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law went unrebutted by plaintiff, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The markings relied upon by plaintiff on the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee map are insufficient to raise any triable issue as to whether defendant had notice of the particular hazard alleged *(see Camacho v City of New York,*218 AD2d 725, 726 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# In-Tube Steam Condensation in the Presence of Air (NUREG/IA-0184)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0184 (PDF 2.33 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** June 2000

**Prepared by:** A. Tanrikut/TAEA O. Yesin/METU

Turkish Atomic Energy Authority Eskisehir Yolu 06530 Ankara, Turkey Middle East Technical University 06531 Ankara, Turkey

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Code Application and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In this research work, in-tube condensation in the presence of air is investigated experimentally for different operating conditions, and inhibiting effect of air is analyzed by comparing the experimental data of air/steam mixture with the data of corresponding pure steam cases, with respect to temperature, heat flux, air mass fraction, and film Reynolds number. The test matrix covers the range of; Pn=2–6 bars, Rev=45,000–94,000, and Xi=0 % – 52 %. The inhibiting effect of air manifests itself as a remarkable decrease in centerline temperature (10 °C – 50 °C), depending on inlet air mass fraction. However, the measured centerline temperature is suppressed compared to the predicted one, from the Gibbs-Dalton law, which indicates that the centerline temperature measurements are highly affected by inner wall thermal conditions, possibly due to narrow channel and high vapor Reynolds number. Even at the lowest air quality (10 %) the reduction of the local heat flux is 20 % while it reaches up to 50 % for the quality of 40 %. Vapor mass flow rate may dominate over system pressure, concerning the effect on local heat flux, for cases with air/vapor mixture. The situation is rather different in pure vapor runs, that is increase in system pressure has a strong effect on enhancement of predicted, and even measured, wall subcooling degree and hence on increase in local heat flux. The investigation for the effect of superheating of steam on condensation process reveals the fact that inlet superheating of steam has no considerable effect on heat flux. The calculated film Reynolds number decreases as air mass fraction increases at the same system pressure setting, and falls into the range of turbulent region (Ref > 300) for almost all experimental runs. The RELAP5 code overpredicted majority of experimental local heat flux data by 5 % – 50 %.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021