alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Michael BREWER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10281

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 19, 2017 *

Filed September 21, 2017

Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brian Michael Brewer, Pro Se

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Brian Michael Brewer appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 210-month sentence for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Brewer’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. Brewer has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

With the exception of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Brewer waived his right to appeal his conviction and 210-month sentence. We decline to review Brewer’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. *See United States v. Rahman,*642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal only in the unusual cases where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel).

The waiver of the right to appeal the restitution order is not enforceable because, at the time Brewer waived the right to appeal the restitution order, he did not receive a reasonably accurate estimate of the amount of restitution the court would order him to pay. *See United States v. Lo,*839 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2016); *United States v. Tsosie,*639 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm the restitution order.

We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the appeal waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
SERVED: JUNE 11,2012 

~------- ----~ --~-~ ---------

! 

i 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ENTERTAINMENT FUSION GROUP 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS FAA-2011-1290 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

-----

'n 'II I 7 :c·1·., i '" I , ? • r.l r· I : 1' "< 0 (." .... ~;,.; f '-

On December 7, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter 

"Complainant") filed a Complaint. On October 31, 2011, Entertainment Fusion Group 

(hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. By letter dated June 1, 2012, 

Respondent filed a Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, citing settlement of the matter. 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED that: 
2 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing is hereby GRANTED; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachments - Service List 

~cU c (~9-~~-- ox 

'Chard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Gordon Turner, Respondent's Counsel 

The Law Offices of Gordon Turner 

3325 Wilshire Boulevard, St1ite 1350 

Los Angeles, CA 90010 

Tel: 213-487-9190 

Fax: 213-487-9484 

ONE COPY 

Kyle E. Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel 

Atton1ey, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind A venue 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FPC(: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of TranspoFtation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 STAFF Assistant 

FPC(: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-1290 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

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

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

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
TS120961 Attachment 1 - Sanitized
#### Matthew G. SILVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. UTTECHT, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35683

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 19, 2017

Matthew Garrett Silva, Pro Se

Timothy J. Feulner, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Corrections Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Former Washington state prisoner Matthew G. Silva appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation, access-to-courts, and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district, court properly dismissed Silva’s action because both Silva’s complaint and proposed amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. *See Hebbe,*627 F.3d at 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (elements of qn access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); *Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability under § 1983); *Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. *5422005) (elements of retaliation claim in prison context).

We reject as meritless Silva’s contentions that the district court erred in not requiring defendants to respond to discovery requests, in not considering his proposed amended complaint, and in not ruling on his destruction of property claim.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gensym Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Lowell B. Hawkinson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John M. Belchers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 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.





/S/ LOWELL B. HAWKINSONDated: November 13, 2002

Lowell B. Hawkinson Chief Executive Officer/S/ JOHN M. BELCHERSDated: November 13, 2002

John M. Belchers Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    LEO M.
CHUPASKALeo M. ChupaskaChief Financial Officer,Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityFebruary 13, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 12, 2016

Order 

Clerk

August 12, 2016

153979(51)

MARLETTE AUTO WASH, LLC, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant- Appellant, SC: 153979

v COA: 326486

Sanilac CC: 14-035490-CH

VAN DYKE SC PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff- Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff/cross-defendant-appellant to 

extend the time for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely 

filed if submitted on or before August 23, 2016.
#### OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Cadila Healthcare, Limited, Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Torrent Pharma Inc., Hetero Labs Limited, Ajanta Pharma Limited, Ajanta Pharma USA Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Accord Healthcare, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., Aurolife Pharma LLC, Lupin Limited, Lupin Atlantis Holdings S.A., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd., Defendants-Appellees

2016-1962, 2016-1963, 2016-1964, 2016-1966, 2016-1968, 2016-1970, 2016-1971, 2016-1972, 2016-1973, 2016-1974, 2016-1975, 2016-1978

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 20, 2017

*809Paul William Browning, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP/ Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by James B. Monroe, Charles Thomas Collins-Chase, Eric Jay Fues, Andrea Denise Main; Jeffrey Andrew Freeman, Atlanta, GA.

Lawrence M. Sung, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-appellees Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Torrent Pharma Inc. also represented by Aditya Neal Seth, Rachel Kapust Hunnicutt.

Chad A. Landmon, Axinn Veltrop Hark-rider, .LLP, Hartford, CT, for defendants-appellees Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cadila Heathcare, Limited. Also represented by Delphine W. Knight Brown, New York, NY.

Deepro Mukerjee, Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY, for defendants-appellees Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Also represented by Lance Soderstrom; Travis James Iams, Charlotte, NC.

Margaret E. Ives, Choate, Hall *&*Stewart LLP, Boston, MA, for defendant-appel-lee Hetero Labs Limited. Also represented by Phoebe Fischer-Groban.

Sailesh K. Patel, Sehiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendant-appellees Ajan-ta Pharma Limited, Ajanta Pharma USA Inc. Also represented by Helen H. Ji.

Brian Wm. Higgins, Blank Rome LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Phar-ma USA Inc., Aurolife Pharma LLC. Also represented by Gerard Haddad, Christopher K. Hu, New York, NY.

Paul Braier, Greenblum *&*Bernstein, P.L.C., Reston, VA, for defendants-appel-lees Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Accord Healthcare, Inc. Also represented by Péter Branko Pejic.

Douglass C. Hochstetler, Kelley Drye *&*Warren, LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendants-appellees Lupin Limited, Lupin Atlantis Holdings S.A., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Also represented by Clifford Katz, New York, NY.

Dennies Varughese, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, for. defendant-appellee Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited. Also represented by Chandrika Vira, Jon Wright.

Ronald Marc Daignault, Polsinelli PC, New York, NY, for defendants-appellees Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. Also represented by Karen Zelle Morris, St. Louis, MO.

Prost, Chief Judge, Chen and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A0 74 3 . KI M BERLY CLARK v . THE STATE.

In 1 9 8 7, a ju ry fo un d Ki m b erl y Cl ark g u i l t y o f rap e, ag g rav at ed s o d o m y , an d

b u rg lary . W e affi rm ed h i s ju d g m en t o f co n v i ct i o n on di rect ap p eal

. Cl ar k v. S t a t e , 1 8 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 8 2 (3 6 9 SE2 d 2 8 2 ) (1 9 8 8 ). In 2 0 1 4

, Cl ark fi l ed a m ot io n fo r an o u t

o f-t im e ap p eal

, wh ich t h e t ri al co u rt d e n i ed

. On ap p eal fro m t h at d eci s i o n , we

v acat ed an d rem an d ed fo r t h e t ri al co u rt t o h o l d an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g t o i n q u i re i n to

t h e ci rcu m st an ces s u rro u n d in g Cl ark ’ s al l eg ed fai l u re t o t i m el y fi le an ap p eal an d h i s

d el ay i n fi l in g t h e m o t i o n fo r an o u t -o f-t im e ap p eal

. 1 Cl a r k v. S t a t e , N o. A1 5 A1 1 4 9

(Sep t

. 3

, 2 0 1 5 ). On rem an d

, fo l l o wi n g a h eari n g, t h e t ri al co u rt ag ai n d en ied an o u t

o f-t im e ap p eal

, n o t i n g t h at Cl ark i n fact h ad fi l ed a d i rect ap p eal i n 1 9 8 8

. Cl ark n o w

ap p eal s t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er o n rem an d . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct io n

.

“ An o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal i s a ju d i ci al creat i o n t h at s erv es a s t h e r e m e d y fo r a

fru s t rat ed ri g h t o f ap peal .” Ki l go r e v. S t a te

, 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 4

, 8 7 5 (1 ) (7 5 6 SE2 d 9 )

(2 0 1 4) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). Becau s e Cl ark al read y has had a d i rect ap p eal

, h e i s

n o t en ti t l ed t o an o u t -o f-t im e ap p eal

. See Ri ch a rd s v. S t a t e , 2 7 5 Ga. 1 90 , 1 9 1 (5 6 3

SE2 d 8 5 6 ) (2 0 0 2) (“ [T] h ere i s n o ri g ht t o d i rect ly ap p eal t h e d en ial o f a m o t i o n fo r

o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal fi led b y a cri m i n al d efen d an t wh o s e co n v i ct i o n h as been affi rm ed

o n d irect ap p eal .”); Ja cks o n v. S t a t e , 27 3 Ga. 3 20 (5 4 0 SE2 d 6 12 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (a d efen d an t

“ i s n ot en t i t l ed t o an o t h er b it e at t h e ap p l e b y way o f a s eco n d ap peal ”).

1 Th e t ri al co u rt reco rd b efo re t hi s Co u rt at t h at ti m e d i d no t refl ect t h at Cl ark

p rev i o u s l y h ad fi l ed a d irect ap p eal fro m h i s ju d gm en t o f co nv i ct i o n.

December 19, 2016Acco rd in g ly , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i on

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 12/19/2016
#### Francis O. NDIKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mrs. MARANON, Soc. Sec. Supervisor, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1637

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: November 7, 2017

Francis O. Ndika, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Rebecca Sara Levenson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Francis 0. Ndika appeals the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and Ndika’s claims and find no reversible error. The court’s dismissal, however, should have been without prejudice. *See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC,*713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). We therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal of Ndika’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); *MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. Of Greenville Cty.,*303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are entitled to affirm the court’s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record.”).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED*
# EUR-Lex - 32001L0054 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001L0054

**Commission Directive 2001/54/EC of 11 July 2001 repealing Directive 79/1066/EEC laying down Community methods of analysis for testing coffee extracts and chicory extracts (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 191 , 13/07/2001 P. 0042 - 0042 *

Commission Directive 2001/54/EC

of 11 July 2001

repealing Directive 79/1066/EEC laying down Community methods of analysis for testing coffee extracts and chicory extracts

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Directive 1999/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts(1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The analysis methods contained in Commission Directive 79/1066/EEC(2), which is based on Council Directive 77/436/EEC(3), are obsolete.

(2) Council Directives 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs(4) and Council Directive 93/1999/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs(5) provide for analyses to be carried out on the conformity of foodstuffs with legal provisions. To that end, Member States must assure themselves that the methods used are validated as often as possible, in particular taking account of standardisation within the ISO.

(3) The importance of checks on the authenticity of coffee extracts as a means of combating fraud and adulteration has resulted in international standardisation work undertaken by the ISO. The Community is participating in this work, which has resulted in ISO standards for soluble coffee.

(4) As a result it is not necessary, within the meaning of Council Directive 85/591/EEC of 20 December 1985 concerning the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for the monitoring of foodstuffs intended for human consumption(6), to maintain official Community analysis methods for coffee extracts and chicory extracts. For that reason Directive 79/1066/EEC should be repealed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4 of Directive 1999/4/EC.

(5) The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 79/1066/EEC is repealed.

Article 2

Member States must take the necessary measures to comply with this Directive by 1 February 2001 at the latest.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 July 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 66, 13.3.1999, p. 26.

(2) OJ L 327, 24.12.1979, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 172, 12.7.1977, p. 20.

(4) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 23.

(5) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 14.

(6) OJ L 372, 31.12.1985, p. 50.
Exhibit 35.4

SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

|   | Re: | HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2006-3 |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------|

I, Richard Farrand, Chief Operating Officer of HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 4.10(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2006 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2006-3, as Issuer, HSBC Auto Receivables Corporation, as Seller, HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as Indenture Trustee, and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Administrator, hereby certify that:

 

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Company from November 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below: |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | NONE |
|--------|------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this 5th  day of March 2007.                   

 

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private

  Limited

 

|   | By: | /s/ Richard Farrand |
|--------|-----|---------------------|

|   | Name: | Richard Farrand |
|--------|-------|-----------------|

|   | Title: | Chief Operating Officer |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
James Pew 

<jpew@earthjustice.org>

05/21/2011 12:15 AM

To Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0505

1 attachment

Recon Petition.docx

Please submit the attached petition for reconsideration to the above‐referenced docket.

Jim Pew

(202) 667‐4500