alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
瞭解您的

護膚產品中含有什麼成分

瞭解更多資訊

www.fda.gov/healthequity

healthequity@fda.hhs.gov

1-888-INFO-FDA

(1-888-463-6332)

@FDAHealthEquity









可通過流覽

www.fda.gov/SkinFacts來找到Get 

the Skin Facts! (獲取關於護膚產品

的情況說明書),瞭解護膚產品安全

方面的知識。

如果您在使用護膚產品時出現不良反

應,請聯繫您的醫療服務提供者,

並將事件報告給FDA,可在這個網頁

www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

進行報告,也可打電話 1-800-fda1088 進行報告。

您知道

嗎?

務必要查閱護膚產品的標籤,看其

是否含有可能對健康構成風險的成

分。要避免使用貼有手工標籤、非

英語標籤或根本沒有標籤的產品。

這樣的產品違反了 FDA 的規定,

可能是有害的。

FDA 少數族裔健康和健康

平等辦公室
什麼是皮膚美白產品?

“皮膚美白”是用來說明市場上的那些用來淡化皮

膚色素沉著(顏色)的產品的用詞。其他一些名稱可

能包括:

• 皮膚光亮劑或美白劑

• 皮膚漂白劑 

• 膚色均勻劑 

• 祛斑劑

• 褪色霜

• 化學換膚劑

皮膚美白產品的廣告通常宣傳其可以治療各種皮膚

狀況,如皮膚變色/色素沉著(黃褐斑)、老人斑或黑

斑、雀斑、粉刺和皺紋。

對苯二酚有何健康風險?

FDA 曾收到在使用含有對苯二酚的皮膚美白產品

後出現嚴重副作用的報告,包括皮疹、面部腫脹和

永久性皮膚變色(褐黃病)。

汞的健康風險是什麼? 

汞是一種劇毒金屬,會損害神經系統、消化系統和

免疫系統以及肺、腎、皮膚和眼睛。即使不使用該

產品的其他家庭成員,也可能透過吸入空氣中的汞

蒸氣或接觸受汞污染的表面而接觸到汞。汞對發育

中的幼兒的大腦和神經系統尤其有害。 

汞中毒的症狀包括易怒、顫抖、視力或聽力改變、

記憶問題、抑鬱、手腳或嘴巴周圍麻木和刺痛。 

汞中毒還可能導致昏迷甚至死亡。

FDA 正在採取什麼措施來保護公眾

免受皮膚美白產品中的這些成分的

危害? 

含有對苯二酚或汞的皮膚美白產品的非處方銷售是

非法的。FDA 可以對以非處方的方式銷售這些產

品的任何人採取行動。 

您可以從您的醫療服務提供者那裡獲得含有對苯二

酚的處方護膚產品。FDA 允許在沒有安全有效的

替代品的情況下在某些化妝品中作為防腐劑而使用

極少量的汞。然而,在任何皮膚美白化妝品中使用

汞都是被禁止的。

購買非處方美白產品時,我應該注

意什麼? 

應查閱其產品標籤,看看它是否含有對苯二酚或

汞。聯邦法律要求在美國銷售的任何化妝品或非處

方(OTC)產品的標籤上都要列出其成分。請注意,

汞在產品標籤上可能被列為氯化亞汞、甘汞、水

銀、汞或Hg 等等。

一些含有對苯二酚或汞的非法皮膚美白產品可能並

沒有在標籤上列出這些成分。要避免使用那些貼有

手工標籤、非英語標籤或根本沒有標籤的產品。這

樣的產品違反了 FDA 的規定,可能是有害的。

如果您出現任何汞中毒症狀,請撥打毒物控

制中心,電話是 1-(800)-222-1222,並立

即聯繫您的醫療服務提供者。

美白產品中是

否含有有害 成

分?

 

在以霜劑、乳液、肥皂或粉末形式出售的非法皮膚

美白產品中,有時會發現對苯二酚和汞。當您在皮

膚上使用這些成分時,它們會被您的身體吸收,持

續使用會讓它們在體內積累,並可能會造成傷害。
#### SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold F. HARRIS and Ronald E. Crews, Defendants-Appellants, U.N. Dollars Corp., Edward A. Durante, Carib Securities Ltd, Berksire Capital Partners, Inc., Galton, Scott & Golett, Inc., Dottenhoff Financial Ltd., Zimenn Importing and Exporting, Inc., Prudential Overseas Company, Commonwealth Associates, Ltd., Henry C. Weingarten, Exchange Bank & Trust, Inc., VJV Inc. Defendants, v. United States Attorney General, Intervenor-Plaintiff.

No. 03-6109.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 13, 2004.

Harold F. Harris and Ronald E. Crews, Jacksonville, FL, for Appellants, pro se.

John W. Avery, Special Counsel (Giovanni P. Prezioso, General Counsel, Jacob H. Stillman, Solicitor, on the brief; Meyer Eisenberg, Deputy General Counsel), Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Appellees, of counsel.

PRESENT: FEINBERG, CABRANES, Circuit Judges and KRAVITZ, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

For substantially the reasons stated by Judge Schwartz in his January 31, 2003 Memorandum Order granting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion for a default judgment against appellants, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Okwae Akeem MILLER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7355.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
#### Leroy M. THURSTON, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Herbert BESKINS; Steve Bennett; Helen P. Parrish, Defendants—Appellees, and Bill Moore; Jesse Franklin, Defendants.

No. 04-1006.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2004.

Decided May 10, 2004.

Leroy M. Thurston, Jr., Appellant pro se. Linda Davis Frith, Frith, Anderson *&*Peake, Roanoke, Virginia; James Morton Bowling, Iv, St. John, Bowling & Lawrence, Charlottesville, Virginia; Kevin Robert Huennekens, Maloney, Huennekens, Parks, Gecker & Parsons, Richmond, Virginia; Peter John Barrett, Kutak Rock, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Leroy M. Thurston, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Thurston’s motion for counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Thurston v. Beskins,*No. CA-03-61 (W.D.Va. Nov. 24, 2003). 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*
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN CHRISTENSEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-01961 CRB

ORDER RE: REFERRAL PURSUANT

TO CIVIL L.R. 3-12(c)

The instant case involves plaintiff’s challenge to defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s

Social Security disability benefits claim. Civil L.R. 3-12(c) provides that “whenever a Judge

believes that a case pending before that Judge is related to another case, the Judge may refer

the case to the Judge assigned to the earliest-filed case with a request that the Judge assigned

to the earliest-filed case consider whether the cases are related.” In accordance with that

Rule, the Court refers this case to Judge William Alsup, who has previously considered the

merits of plaintiff’s social security disability application (00-0752 WHA). Below is a brief

procedural history.

On October 9, 2000, United States District Court Judge William Alsup issued a

Memorandum and Order 1) denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, 2)

reversing the denial of disability benefits, and 3) remanding to the administrative law judge

to complete sequential analysis pursuant to 20 CFR 404.1520.

Case 3:05-cv-01961-WHA Document 12 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2005\1961\Referral to Judge Alsup.wpd 2

On remand the ALJ again denied benefits and the Appeals Council upheld the ruling

of the ALJ. Plaintiff again filed an action in this Court which was assigned to Magistrate

Judge Chen, 02-2730. Before the Court considered the merits, plaintiff and defendant

entered into a Stipulation and Order of Remand directing the ALJ to obtain medical expert

testimony as to the nature, severity and limiting effects of plaintiff’s impairments on or

before December 31, 1985 and, if needed, whether plaintiff had been continuously disabled

since that time. Judgment was entered accordingly.

On remand the ALJ again denied benefits, and the Appeals Council upheld the ALJ’s

decision and refused to assume jurisdiction.

Plaintiff filed suit again on May 12, 2005 (05-1961), and the case was assigned to the

undersigned judge. 

Dated: December 14, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01961-WHA Document 12 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Cedric NICKERSON, petitioner, v. David SWEETIN, Warden, et al.

No. 12-9221.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2534

JOHNNIE GRAY, widow of Henry Gray,

Petitioner,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(99-1107-BLA)

Submitted: May 24, 2001 Decided: August 7, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas E. Johnson, Phillip H. Snelling, JOHNSON, JONES, SNELLING,

GILBERT & DAVIS, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Petitioner. Judith

E. Kramer, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate

Solicitor, Patricia M. Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation,

Sarah M. Hurley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington,

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We have considered the recent revisions to the regulations

implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, see Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as

amended; 65 Fed. Reg. 79,919 (Dec. 20, 2000), and have determined

that the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case.

2

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Gray seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial

of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West

1986 & Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

Board.* See Gray v. DOWCP, No. 99-1107-BLA (BRB Oct. 19, 2000).

We grant Gray’s motion to submit this case on the briefs and

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22058-22059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10954]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-330-000]


ANR Storage Company; Notice of Application

April 28, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 18, 1995, ANR Storage Company (ANR 
Storage) 500 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243, filed in 
Docket No. CP95-330-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the 
Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon three storage 
services performed for Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle), 
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    ANR Storage states that the services are provided pursuant to Rate 
Schedules X-2, X-3, and X-4 which was authorized by Order issued in 
Docket No. CP78-432 et al.
    ANR Storage states further that the term of the agreement 
underlying each of the services has expired, and Panhandle has 
requested termination of the services.
    Any person desiring to be heard or any person desiring to make any 
protest with reference to said application should on or before May 19, 
1995, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North 
Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a 
protest in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests 
filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing 
therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's Rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be 
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on 
this [[Page 22059]] application if no motion to intervene is filed 
within the time required herein, if the Commission on its own review of 
the matter finds that permission and approval for the proposed 
abandonment are required by the public convenience and necessity. If a 
motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on 
its own motion believes that a formal hearing is required, further 
notice of such hearing will be duly given.
    Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, 
it will be unnecessary for ANR to appear or be represented at the 
hearing.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10954 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Harry James MARSHALL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           10100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10497
<PP&E>                                           13258
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              308
<BONDS>                                           3814
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       19902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24024
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   193
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (157)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (157)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (157)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)
        

</TABLE>
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR I. NEEL CHATTERJEE CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA

I. Neel Chatterjee (SBN 173985) 

nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Tel.: +1 650 752 3100 

Fax: +1 650 853 1038 

Brett M. Schuman (SBN 189247) 

bschuman@goodwinlaw.com Rachel M. Walsh (SBN 250568) 

rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Tel.: +1 415 733 6000 

Fax.: +1 415 677 9041 

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendant, 

Anthony Levandowski 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR 

COUNSEL I. NEEL CHATTERJEE 

Judge: Honorable William Alsup 

Courtroom: 8- 19th Floor 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 251 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR I. NEEL CHATTERJEE CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Attorney I. Neel Chatterjee of the law firm Goodwin Procter 

LLP, a member of the State Bar of California and admitted to practice in this Court, and whose 

contact information appears below, hereby enters his appearance as an attorney of record for 

intervenor defendant, Anthony Levandowski in the above-titled case. 

Copies of all pleadings, correspondence, and electronic filing notices should be 

directed to Counsel as follows: 

I. Neel Chatterjee 

nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Tel.: +1 650 752 3100 

Fax: +1 650 853 1038 

Dated: April 21, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ I. Neel Chatterjee 

 I. Neel Chatterjee 

nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com 

Brett M. Schuman 

bschuman@goodwinlaw.com 

Rachel M. Walsh 

rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendant, 

Anthony Levandowski 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 251 Filed 04/21/17 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR I. NEEL CHATTERJEE CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by using the CM/ECF system 

on April 21, 2017. I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and 

that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 21st 

day of April 2017. 

 /s/ I. Neel Chatterjee 

 I. NEEL CHATTERJEE 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 251 Filed 04/21/17 Page 3 of 3
PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP2001
      Ross Avenue, Suite 1800Dallas
      TX 75201-2997Telephone
      (214) 999 1400Facsimile
      (214) 754 7991




Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 To the
Board of Directors of The First American Corporation:
  We have
examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas,
LP. (the "Company" and an indirect subsidiary of The First American Corporation)
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities
and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for residential and
commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as
the residential and commercial tax service provider (the "Platform"), as of
December 31, 2007 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria
1122(d)(1)(i)-(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x)
and 1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to
the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform.
Management's assertion identifies the individual securities defined by
management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.
 
 Our
examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and the servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent
to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.
 
 In our
opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and
commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material
respects.
    February
12, 2008
Exhibit 23.5





Consent of Independent Auditors





The Board of Directors


Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.:





We consent to the use of our report dated March 21, 2013, with respect to the balance sheets of Bay Area Smart Growth Fund II, LLC as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related statements of operations, members' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements, incorporated by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-174742, No. 333-175002, No. 333-175559, No. 333-184752, and No. 333-192059) on Form S-3, the registration statement (No. 333-164928) on Form S-8, the registration statement (No. 333-164926) on Form S-1/A and the registration statement (No. 333-186690) on Form S-4 of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. in reliance upon the report of KPMG LLP, independent auditors, which report appears in amendment no. 1 to the December 31, 2013 annual report on Form 10-K of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.














/s/ KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas


March 31, 2014
David M. PERELMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7545.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Robin PERRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9195.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
REPORT ON
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE
  First
American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. (an indirect subsidiary of The
First American Corporation and "the Asserting Party") is responsible for
assessing compliance as of December 31, 2007, and for the period from January 1,
2007 through December 31, 2007 ("the Reporting Period") with the servicing
criteria set forth in Title 17, Sections 229.1122(d)(l)(iv), (d)(2)(v),
(d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code of
Federal Regulations applicable to the Asserting Party ("the Applicable Servicing
Criteria"). The transactions covered by this report include all loans for
residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the
Asserting Party served as the residential and commercial tax service provider
("the Platform").
 
 The
Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, With the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of
December 31, 2007, and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform
taken as a whole.
 
 PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as
of December 31, 2007, and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this
assertion.
        /s/ Lucy A.
Przybyla