alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.6


                        Report of Independent Accountants



To the Board of Directors of Ford Motor Credit Company, JPMorgan Chase,
Indenture Trustee, The Bank of New York, Owner Trustee:

Re: Sale and Servicing Agreement by and among Ford Auto Owner Trust 2002-B, as
Issuer, Ford Credit Auto Receivables Two LLC, as Seller, and Ford Motor Credit
Company, as Servicer, dated as of March 1, 2002

We have examined management's assertion about Ford Motor Credit Company and its
subsidiaries' ("Ford Credit") compliance with the minimum servicing standards
identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP"), to the extent such procedures
are applicable as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the
accompanying management assertion (Exhibit I). Management is responsible for
Ford Credit's compliance with these minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about Ford
Credit's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Ford Credit's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination of Ford Credit's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Ford Credit has complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 18, 2003

<PAGE>

                                                                       Exhibit I



Ford Motor Credit Company                                    One American Road
                                                             P.O. Box 1732
                                                             Dearborn, MI  48121




                  Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
                     with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards


March 18, 2003

Re:   Sale and Sevicing Agreement by and among Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust
2002-B, as Issuer, Ford Credit Auto Receivables Two LLC, as Seller, and
Ford Motor Credit Company, as Servicer, dated as of March 1, 2002


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, Ford Motor Credit Company and
its subsidiaries have complied in all material respects with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP"), to
the extent such procedures are applicable.





/s/ Terry Chenault
-----------------------------------------
President of Global Operations Technology




/s/ Ann Marie Petach
-----------------------------------------
Assistant Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      17,919
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                     801,551
<DEPRECIATION>                            (111,367)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             774,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                    224,565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 318,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               774,857
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,963
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,915
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,283
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,048
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,048
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,048
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.47
        

</TABLE>
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.4**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY        ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly                  period                  ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                  Act of                  1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| (2)    | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                  Company.                                                                                                                                                                        |

| Date:  November 2,                  2007 | /s/                  Thomas B. Specketer       |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                    | Thomas                  B. Specketer           |   |
|                                                    | Vice                  President and Controller |   |
|                                                    | (chief                  financial officer)     |   |

----

----
#### Meek and Others v. Baine.

Saturday, June 20, 1807.

Appeals — -Dismissal on Motion.* —Where two terms of this Court have elapsed, since the appeal, and hefore the record is brought up, the administrator of the appellee may have the appeal dismissed, on motion, without resorting to a scire facias.

*

See generally, monographic *note*on "Appeal and Error" appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Co., 1 Rob. 263.

The appellee obtained a judgment against the appellants, on a forthcoming bond, at the District Court, held at Washington Court-House, on the 4lh of October, 1805 : from which judgment an appeal was taken, at the same term, to this Court; but no record of the appeal was sent up.

More than two termshaving elapsed, and the appellee having died intestate since the appeal, Hening moved to enter an appearance for his administrator, and to dismiss *the appeal without resorting to a scire facias. He considered this case as not coming within the reason of the case of Wood v. Webb, cited in a note to Daniel v. Robinson’s Executors, (a) There the appeal was docketed in this Court, and the judgment might either have been reversed or affirmed; but here, the record not having been brought up, the appeal, according to the course of the Court, can only be dismissed. This was settled as the practice of the Court-in Mills v. Black,(b) and referred to, at the last term, in the ca.se of Nelson v. Matthews, (c) The practice in England of suing out a scire facias adt au-diendum errores upon the death of the defendant in error, (d) has no weight in this case; because our act of assembly expressly directs, that, unless a transcript of the record be sent up, on or before the second, term of the Court of Appeals, after the appeal shall have been granted, it shall be dismissed, unless good cause be shewn to the contrary; and the Court will not intend that there is good cause, where the appellant, far from attempting to shew it, does not even prosecute his appeal.

Curia advisare vult.

Monday, June 22. The President delivered the opinion of the Court, (absent JUDGE TUCKER,) that the appeal be dismissed, in the common form, the entry to be on the motion of the administrator, &c.

(a)

 1 Wash. 1B4.

(b)

1 Call, 211.

(c)

 1 Hening & Munford, 21.

(d)

 1 Salk. 264. Wicket and others v. Creamer, and 1 Lord Raym. 349, S. C.
No. 86-822.

#### Home Insurance Co. et al. *v.*Eli Lilly & Co.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Marine Air Control Squadron-4 Marines Train to Employ Expeditionary Runways

By  Cpl. Aaron HensonMarine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
================================================================================


EXHIBIT 32
                          Rule 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Leisure Direct,
Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Leisure Direct, Inc. and will be retained by Leisure Direct, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

May 19, 2005                           /s/  John R. Ayling
                                       --------------------------
                                       John R. Ayling
                                      (Chief Executive Officer)

























--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1032

___________________________

F. Allan Midyett, M.D.

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

 ____________

 Submitted: August 26, 2020

Filed: August 31, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

F. Allen Midyett appeals after the district court1 dismissed his employment

discrimination action as barred by res judicata, based on the dismissals of his prior

1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.
employment discrimination suits related to the same events. The district court also

denied his post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), in

which Midyett asserted that res judicata was inapplicable because the dismissals of

his prior suits were based on fraud.

Because the only order of the district court designated in Midyett’s notice of

appeal was the order denying his post-judgment motion, we conclude that the scope

of this appeal is limited to review of that order; and we further conclude that there

was no abuse of discretion in the denial of post-judgment relief. See Fed. R. App.

P. 3(c)(1) (notice of appeal must, inter alia, designate judgment, order, or part thereof

being appealed); Chambers v. City of Fordyce, Ark., 508 F.3d 878, 881-82 (8th Cir.

2007) (per curiam) (appeal from denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion does not raise

underlying judgment for review, but only question of whether district court abused

its discretion in ruling on motion); E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Berns, 757 F.2d 215, 216-17

(8th Cir. 1985) (to prevail on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion based on fraud, movant

must establish by clear and convincing evidence that adverse party engaged in fraud

or other misconduct that prevented movant from fully and fairly presenting his case).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the motion filed

by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs seeking to supplement the

record.

______________________________

-2-
```

Exhibit 32.1

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

In  connection  with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Teton  Petroleum  Company
(the  "Company")  for the period  ended  December  31, 2004 to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on or about the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Karl F. Arleth, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
     of the Securities Exchange 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.

It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Dated: March 29, 2005

                                              /s/ Karl F. Arleth
                                              ------------------
                                              Name: Karl F. Arleth
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6358** 

ANTHONY WRIGHT , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN KENNETH LASSITER , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:13

- hc

- 02064

- BO )

Submitted : Ju ne 26 , 2014 Decided: Ju ne 30 , 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING , and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Anthony Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge , III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Wright seeks to appeal the d istrict court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 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. 322, 336

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

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude tha t Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 prese nted in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No. 91-6059.

#### Reed *v.*Belew, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 02, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 02, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0414. EDWARD T. RIDLEY v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

13R149
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Crew Chief Green-Lights Career 

By Staff Sgt. Levi Rowse80th Aircraft Maintenance Unit

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1366 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1366

 To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to terminate an exemption 
for companies located in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and any other 
                    possession of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2017

Ms. Velazquez (for herself, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Serrano, and Mr. MacArthur) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to terminate an exemption 
for companies located in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and any other 
                    possession of the United States.

    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 ``U.S. Territories Investor Protection 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 6(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 
(15 U.S.C. 80a-6(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (1).
    (b) Effective Date and Safe Harbor.--
            (1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        the amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Safe harbor.--With respect to a company that is exempt 
        under section 6(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 
        U.S.C. 80a-6(a)(1)) on the day before the date of the enactment 
        of this Act, the amendment made by subsection (a) shall take 
        effect on the date that is 3 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
            (3) Extension of safe harbor.--The Securities and Exchange 
        Commission, by rule and regulation upon its own motion, or by 
        order upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally, 
        under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 
        U.S.C. 80a-6(c)), further delay the effective date for a 
        company described in paragraph (2) for a maximum of 3 years 
        following the initial 3-year period if, before the end of the 
        initial 3-year period, the Commission determines that such a 
        rule, regulation, motion, or order is necessary or appropriate 
        in the public interest and for the protection of investors.
                                 <all>
```