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

 

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification

 

I, James Darrell Thomas, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this annual 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 Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2013-1 (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.              I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and, based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews 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; 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 party: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.

 
|                  | HARLEY-DAVIDSON   MOTORCYCLE TRUST 2013-1 |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                  |                                      |   |
|                  |                                      |   |
|                  |                                      | By: | Harley-Davidson   Credit Corp.,   as Servicer |
|                  |                                      |   |   |
|                  |                                      | By: | /s/   James Darrell Thomas |
|                  |                                      |   | James   Darrell Thomas |
|                  |                                      |   | Vice   President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary |
|                  |                                      |   | (senior   officer in charge of the servicing function) |
|                  |                                      |   |   |
|                  |                                      |   |   |
| March 25,   2014 |                                      |   |   |

 

----
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 3 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2015 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself and Ms. HIRONO) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday 

of King Kamehameha I. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO 

4 CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF KING KAMEHA5 MEHA. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an 

8 event on June 7, 2015, to celebrate the birthday of King 

9 Kamehameha I. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 3 IS 

1 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

2 conduct of the event described in subsection (a) shall be 

3 carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be 

4 prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.2
                       CERTIFICATIONS

	I, Kevin Kerrigan, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Diacrin,
Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this 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 report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
b)	[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition
instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986]
c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and
b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.


Date:	July 30, 2003
                                           /s/ Kevin Kerrigan
                                          ----------------
                                           Controller
Exhibit 99.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In  connection  with the  filing  of Tech  Electro  Industries,  Inc.  and
Subsidiaries  (the  "Company")  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB for the period
ending June 30, 2002 with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof (the "Report"),  I, William Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350, as adopted pursuant
to (SS) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

            (2) The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


/s/ William Tan
--------------------
William Tan
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 13, 2002
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-1797 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

v . TREVOR CHARLTON, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET Chief Judge Lynch's concurrence in the opinion of this Court issued on April 1, 2010, is amended as follows: On page 25, line 4, "though little help to him here" is changed to "though of little help to him here".
#### HINKLE OIL & GAS, INC., petitioner, v. BOWLES RICE McDAVID GRAFF & LOVE, LLP, et al.

No. 09-1319.

Oct. 4, 2010.

Case below, 360 Fed.Appx. 400.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 22 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and 

the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of ‘‘waters 

of the United States’’ under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 

Mrs. ERNST (for herself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. 

BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. DAINES, Mr. ENZI, Mrs. 

FISCHER, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. 

HATCH, Mr. HELLER, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. 

LANKFORD, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MORAN, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. 

RUBIO, Mr. SASSE, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. THUNE, 

Mr. TILLIS, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WICKER, Mr. SULLIVAN, and 

Mr. MCCONNELL) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 22 IS 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 

4 Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 

5 Agency relating to ‘‘Clean Water Rule: Definition of 

6 ‘Waters of the United States’ ’’ (80 Fed. Reg. 37054; 

7 June 29, 2015), and such rule shall have no force or ef8 fect. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1686

KERRY LEE WAGAMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the Navy,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(8:05-cv-02258-PJM)

Submitted: May 11, 2007 Decided: June 11, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Snider, Ari Taragin, Jeffery C. Taylor, SNIDER &

ASSOCIATES, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.

Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Wagaman also challenges the district court’s order denying

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion for a continuance to conduct

discovery. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

denial of Wagaman’s motion.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kerry Lee Wagaman appeals the district court’s order that

granted summary judgment in favor of his former employer in his

civil action in which he alleged violations of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act and

retaliation. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there

are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). We have thoroughly

reviewed the briefs and joint appendix, including the transcript of

the summary judgment hearing, and find no reversible error.*

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated on the record by the

district court. See Wagaman v. England, No. 8:05-cv-02258-PJM (D.

Md. May 17, 2006). 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
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0407V

UNPUBLISHED

VERONICA SANDERSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 27, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Causation-In-Fact; Influenza (Flu) 

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On March 18, 2019, Veronica Sanderson filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on October 4, 

2016. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccination in the 

United States, suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and 

that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for 

her injury. Id. at ¶¶ 26-28. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

On April 27, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent “concludes that the alleged injury is consistent with 

SIRVA that was caused by the administration of petitioner’s flu vaccine on October 4, 

2016.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands, 

petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act.”

Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### SINGER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.; Live Gold Operations, Inc., Appellants. v. Anne MILGRAM, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey.

No. 09-2238.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Sept. 1, 2010.

William L. Charron, Esq., Pryor Cash-man, New York, NY, George W. Wright, Esq., George W. Wright *&*Associates, Hackensack, NJ, for Appellants.

Jeffrey A. Koziar, Esq., Office of Attorney General of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, for Anne Milgrana.

Present: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, Jr., VANASKIE and ALDISERT1 ROTH2, Circuit Judges.

1

. Will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.6.4.

2

. Will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.6.4.

ORDER

THEODORE A. McKEE, Chief Circuit Judge.

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing *en banc*in the above captioned case, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court shall list the case for rehearing *en banc*at the convenience of the Court. The opinion and judgment entered August 5, 2010, are hereby vacated.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000795

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

THE ESTATE OF KAREN I. STIRLING, whose full name is

KAREN INGALLS STIRLING, DECEASED.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(P. NO. 18-1-0109(3))

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Stipulation to Dismiss Appeal

With Prejudice (Stipulation), filed April 29, 2020, by

Petitioner-Appellee Benjamin W. Gale (Gale), Personal

Representative of the Estate of Karen I. Stirling, the papers in

support, and the record, it appears that:

(1) The appeal has not been docketed; 

(2) On November 27, 2019, Gale filed a notice

indicating that on October 25, 2019, Applicant-Appellant Olga V.

Bordenyuk (Bordenyuk) filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in

the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Hawai#i, Case

No. 19-01368, which apparently the parties and the probate court

clerk believed stayed the appeal under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2010)

and Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 54(c);

(3) It is not clear that the bankruptcy petition stayed

the appeal, because an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362

applies to suits against the debtor, not suits by the debtor, see

Parker v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 1995), and Bordenyuk

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000795

08-MAY-2020

12:01 PM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

initiated the underlying case by filing an application for

intestate informal appointment of personal representative;

(4) In the instant Stipulation, Gale and Bordenyuk's

bankruptcy court trustee agree to dismiss the appeal with

prejudice, under HRAP Rule 42(b), as part of a settlement

agreement reached in the bankruptcy case, and that the parties

shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. The Stipulation

is dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the

appeal. Attached to the Stipulation is a certified copy of the

bankruptcy court order approving the settlement agreement, which

appears to comply with HRAP Rule 54(c); and

(5) It appears that if there was a bankruptcy stay in

effect in this appeal, it has terminated. Because the appeal has

not been docketed, dismissal is authorized by HRAP Rule 42(a).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation is

approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties

shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 8, 2020.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

2
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 3 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 3

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
      for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 5, 2015

    Mr. Schatz (for himself and Ms. Hirono) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
      for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF 
              KING KAMEHAMEHA.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on June 7, 2015, to celebrate the 
birthday of King Kamehameha I.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered January 8 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 0 1096
- CR
CHARLES EDWARDS SIEL OFF III , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10
- 35795
- P 

### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeal.
On October 29 , 2012, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief ha d not been filed. W e ADOPT t he findings that: (1) appellant desires to
pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel Melvyn Bruder; (3) Mr. Bruder’s explanation for the failure to file appellant’s brief is his workload; and (4) Mr. Bruder requested thirty days to file appellant’s brief.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within thirty days of the date of this order. Because the brief is three months overdue, no further extensions will be granted. If appellant’s brief is not filed within the time specified, we will order Melvyn Bruder removed as appellant’s attorney and order the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in the appeal.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Teresa Hawthorne, Presiding Judge, 203rd J udicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID W. EVANS JUSTICE