alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            6021 - INDX 2006-AR37 (CREDIT SUISSE)



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
# EUR-Lex - 32003R2196 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R2196

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2196/2003 of 16 December 2003 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector **

*
Official Journal L 328 , 17/12/2003 P. 0017 - 0018 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2196/2003

of 16 December 2003

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 10(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The basic quantities of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup laid down in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 are amended by the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union, as from the date of entry into force of that Act. In order to take into account those basic quantities, the table setting out the coefficients in the first subparagraph of Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 should be adapted with effect from the same date.

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Sugar Management Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The table in Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 is replaced by the following:

">TABLE>"

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2004, subject to the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by the Act of Accession of 2003.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renato TORRES-EGUINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7498

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 5, 2017

Renato Torres-Eguino, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, *304North. Carolina; Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Renato Torres-E guiño seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and denying a certifícate of appealability. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 164 L.Ed.2d 931 (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. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Torres-Eguino has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 15 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 15

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  allow the President to reduce or disapprove items of appropriation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 11 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

  Mr. Simon introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  allow the President to reduce or disapprove items of appropriation.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``The President may reduce or disapprove any item of appropriation 
in any Act or joint resolution, except any item of appropriation for 
the Congress. If an Act or joint resolution is approved by the 
President, any item of appropriation provided in the Act or joint 
resolution that is not reduced or disapproved shall become law. The 
President shall return with his objections any item of appropriation 
reduced or disapproved to the House in which the Act or joint 
resolution containing such item originated. The Congress may, in the 
manner prescribed under section 7 of article I for Acts disapproved by 
the President, reconsider any item of appropriation disapproved or 
reduced under this article. Notwithstanding section 7 of article I only 
a majority vote of each House shall be required to approve an item 
which has been disapproved or to restore an item which has been reduced 
by the President pursuant to this article to the original amount 
contained in the Act or joint resolution as passed by the Congress.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.6**

**AGGREGATE      SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST DISTRIBUTIONS TO      NOTEHOLDERS**

| Class     |   | Interest |         | Principal |   | Losses       |   | Ending                Balance |   |
|-----------|--------|----------|--------------|-----------|--------|--------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Note      |   |     | 1,881,006.94 |      |   | 4,979,392.43 |   |                          | 0.00   |   |   | 350,020,607.57 |   |
| Trnsf.Int |   |     | 331,777.37   |      |   | 0.00         |   |                          | 0.00   |   |   | 0.00 |   |

----
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 3, 2010

p1124 

# Order

December 3, 2010

141571

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141571 COA: 275584 Wayne CC: 06-601127-NF RUFUS YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant,

and

NICOLE WILLIAMS and LINDA LEE, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 3, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applica tion or take other pe remptory action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). The parties may file supplement al briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

Persons or groups interested in the determ ination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permissi on to file briefs amicus curiae.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0207 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0207

**2002/207/EC: Commission Decision of 11 March 2002 on the inventory of wine production potential presented by Portugal (the Azores and Madeira) pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (notified under document number C(2002) 902) **

*
Official Journal L 068 , 12/03/2002 P. 0035 - 0035 *

Commission Decision

of 11 March 2002

on the inventory of wine production potential presented by Portugal (the Azores and Madeira) pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999

(notified under document number C(2002) 902)

(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)

(2002/207/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2585/2001(2), and in particular Article 23(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 provides for the presentation of an inventory of wine production potential. Access to the regularisation of unlawfully planted areas, the increase in planting rights and support for restructuring and conversion is subject to prior presentation of this inventory.

(2) Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential(3) sets out details of the information to be included in the inventory.

(3) By letters of 6 August 2001 and 4 November 2001, Portugal sent the Commission the information referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. Examination of this information shows that Portugal has compiled the inventory for the Azores and Madeira.

(4) This Decision does not entail recognition by the Commission of the accuracy of the information contained in the inventory or of the compatibility of the legislation referred to in the inventory with Community law. It is without prejudice to any future Commission decision on these points.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Commission notes that Portugal has compiled the inventory referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 for the Azores and Madeira.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Done at Brussels, 11 March 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 143, 16.6.2000, p. 1.
#### James H. McElhinney, Resp’t, *v.*Gustav Franke, Impl’d, App’lt.

Appeal from seventh district court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Jose Mario Enrique CLAVEL-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71964

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Jonathan A. Reingold, Attorney, Rein-gold Law, P.L.L.C., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Mario Enrique Clavel-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch,*828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

Clavel-Ramirez’s contentions as to asylum eligibility in the context of reinstated removal orders fail. *See Perez-Guzman v. Lynch,*835 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2016).

Clavel-Ramirez alleges past harm and fears future extortion and harm by gang members in El Salvador if returned. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Clavel-Ramirez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in El Salvador on account of a protected ground. *See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,*846 F.3d 351, (9th Cir. 2017) (“A person seeking withholding of removal must prove not only that his life or freedom will be threatened in his home country, but also that the threat is ‘because of one of the five [protected grounds].”); *see also Reyes v. Lynch,*842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Clavel-Ramirez failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquies*588cence of the government of El Salvador. *See Andrade-Garcia,*828 F.3d at 836-37.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 37 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 37

 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 
changes in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2539) to amend subtitle IV 
   of title 49, United States Code, to reform economic regulation of 
                transportation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 21, 1995

Mr. Exon (for himself and Mr. Wellstone) submitted the following; which 
                      was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 
changes in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled ``An Act to 
  abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission, to amend subtitle IV of 
    title 49, United States Code, to reform economic regulation of 
               transportation, and for other purposes.''

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of 
the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled ``An Act to abolish the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States 
Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other 
purposes'' shall make the following corrections:
            (1) In section 11326(b) proposed to be inserted in title 
        49, United States Code, by section 102, strike ``unless the 
        applicant elects to provide the alternative arrangement 
        specified in this subsection. Such alternative'' and insert 
        ``except that such''.
            (2) In section 13902(b)(5) proposed to be inserted in title 
        49, United States Code, by section 103, strike ``Any'' and 
        insert ``Subject to section 14501(a), any''.

            Passed the Senate December 21, 1995.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 796 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 796

To provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark National 
 Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and prohibit the removal of such horses, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 1 (legislative day, May 11), 1995

Mr. Bond (for himself and Mr. Ashcroft) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark National 
 Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and prohibit the removal of such horses, 
                        and for other purposes.
    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 ``Ozark Wild Horses Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF FREE-ROAMING HORSES.

    The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
establishment of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in the State of 
Missouri, and for other purposes'', approved August 27, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 
460m), is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``protection and 
preservation of free-roaming horses,'' after ``wildlife,''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL OF HORSES.

    Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
establishment of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in the State of 
Missouri, and for other purposes'', approved August 27, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 
460m-4), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) The Secretary may not remove, or allow or assist in the 
removal of, any free-roaming horse from Federal land within the 
boundaries of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, except in the case 
of a medical emergency or natural disaster.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 38 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 38

        Restating the commitment to a seven year balanced budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              January 5 (legislative day, January 3), 1996

 Mr. Daschle submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
        Restating the commitment to a seven year balanced budget

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That:
            (1) The President and the Congress shall enact legislation 
        in the second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress to 
        achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as 
        estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the President 
        and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must protect 
        future generations, ensure medicare solvency, reform welfare, 
        and provide adequate funding for medicaid, education, 
        agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. 
        Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to help 
        working families and stimulate future economic growth.
            (2) The balanced budget agreement shall be estimated by the 
        Congressional Budget Office based on its most recent current 
        economic and technical assumptions, following a thorough 
        consultation and review with the Office of Management and 
        Budget, and other Government and private experts.
                                 <all>
```
02/09/201 1 09:5 0 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 2)001/00 1 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASmNGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: SUN QUEST EXECUTIVE AIR CHARTER, INC. 

Docket No. CP08WP0004 

FDMS No. FAA'2008-0238 ii2 

Served: February 7, 2011 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

-.-, 

0 3 

1 

.JD 

> 

p r 

~: '^'•r:^r ^ 

M;;'~i^ ^ '-^^^^ •:~),-9-H 

-,-,C-J:;? -

rn-4 m S2S5 

r-oQ 

On January 5, 2011, the Adminisiraior issued FAA Order No. 2011-1, requesting 

furtlier briefing in this matter. The Administrator directed that the parlies file iheir b^ls 

no later than 30 days after the issuance of FAA Order No. 2011-1. 

By document dated February 4, 2011, Complainant's attorney requested a 30-day 

extension of time in which to file his brief. Complainant's attorney also represented that 

he had obtained the agreement of Respondent's counsel to a 30-day extension of time for 

the briefs of both parties. 

Accordingly, the request for aii extension of time in which to file the briefs is 

granted. As a result, both parlies' briefs arc now due to be filed on or before March 7, 

2011.' 

J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, 

ADMINISTRATOR 

Federal Aviation Administration 

CO 

VICKI S. LI 

Manager, Adjudication Branch 

' The "mailing rule" (14 C.F.R. § 13.211 (e)), which provides for 5 additional days after service 

by mail, does not apply to this extension. 

Issued under authority delegated rothe Chief Counsel and the Assislanl Chief Counsel for 

Litigation by Memorandum daicJ October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.202 {see 57 Fed. Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated by the Assistant ChiefCounscI foiLitigation to the Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated August 6, 1993.