alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Litton Loan Servicing LP
An affiliate of C-Bass
4828 Loop Central Drive
Houston, Texas  77081-2226
Telephone 713 966-8966
Fax 713 966-8830


January 10, 2003


Deloitte & Touche LLP
333 Clay Street, Suite 2300
Houston, TX  77002

In connection with your examination of our assertion that Litton Loan
Servicing LP (the "Company") complied with the minimum servicing standards in
the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31,
2002, we recognize that obtaining representations from us concerning the
information contained in this letter is a significant procedure in enabling
you to express an opinion on management's assertion about compliance with the
minimum servicing standards.  Accordingly, we make the following
representations, which are true to the best of our knowledge and belief in all
material respects:

1.  We are responsible for complying with the minimum servicing standards in
    the USAP.
2.  We are responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective internal
    control structure over compliance with the minimum servicing standards.
3.  We have performed an evaluation of the Company's compliance with the
    minimum servicing standards.
4.  As of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, the Company has complied
    with the minimum servicing standards.
5.  We have disclosed to you all known noncompliance with the minimum
    servicing standards.
6.  We have made available to you all documentation related to compliance with
    the minimum servicing standards.
7.  We have disclosed any communications from regulatory agencies, internal
    auditors, and other practitioners concerning possible noncompliance with
    the minimum servicing standards, including communications received between
    January 1, 2003 and January 10, 2003.
8.  We have disclosed to you any known noncompliance occurring subsequent to
    December 31, 2002.


/s/ Larry B. Litton, Sr.
---------------------------------------
Larry B. Litton, Sr., President and CEO

/s/ Janice McClure
---------------------------------------
Janice McClure, Senior Vice President
# C_2009020EN.01000901.xml

| 27.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5393 — Teijin Pharma/Laboratorios del Dr. Esteve/Oximeplus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 20/05)

On 7 January 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5393. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5393. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# L_2008008EN.01001001.xml

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 8/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 8/10

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 6 December 2007

appointing a Belgian member and a Belgian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2008/32/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Belgian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has fallen vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr LETERME. A seat as an alternate member has fallen vacant, following the appointment of Mr SAUWENS as a member, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has fallen vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr LETERME. A seat as an alternate member has fallen vacant, following the appointment of Mr SAUWENS as a member,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which ends on 25 January 2010:

| (a) | as a member:
  Mr Johan SAUWENS, Member of the Flemish Parliament,
  and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

as a member:

Mr Johan SAUWENS, Member of the Flemish Parliament,

and

| (b) | as an alternate member:
  Mr Ludwig CALUWE, Member of the Flemish Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

as an alternate member:

Mr Ludwig CALUWE, Member of the Flemish Parliament.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 6 December 2007.

For the Council

The President

A. COSTA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
#### CITY OF UTICA, Respondent, v. UTICA TELEPHONE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by the city of Utica against the Utica Telephone Company.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals granted. See 48 N. Y. Supp. 916.
Order filed, June 7, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00281-CR

____________

CHARLTON WARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 10

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1816980

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due April 6, 2012, 2012. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On April 17, 2012, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 

10 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has 

not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order David Fortson, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be entertained 

absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible 
for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If 

David Fortson does not timely file the record as ordered, we will issue an order directing 

the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the 

record.

PER CURIAM
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 24, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41632 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WAYNE PAUL BURTON; ROMEO BOTELLO, JR., Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-258-1

-------------------- Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wayne Paul Burton appeals his jury convictions for possession with intent to distribute 570 kilograms of marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. Romeo Botello, Jr., appeals his jury convictions for possession with intent to distribute 828 kilograms of marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. They argue that the evidence is insufficient to support their conspiracy convictions and that the evidence is not sufficient to establishNo. 03-41632 -2- that their relevant conduct included more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. Botello also argues that his conspiracy conviction violates due process because it is not supported by a reliable evidentiary basis; this argument in effect restates his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. A review of the evidence in the record indicates that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence established that Burton and Botello entered into an agreement with others to transport marijuana, that they knew about the agreement, and that they voluntarily participated in this agreement. See United States v. Lopez , 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). The inconsistencies in Burton’s statement to police and the false bill of lading indicate that Burton knew the marijuana was hidden in the tractor-trailer. See United States v. Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998). The evidence also established that it was reasonably foreseeable to Burton and Botello that the conspiracy involved the transportation of more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(1); United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 117 (5th Cir. 1995). Burton also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in that: (1) he was not Burton’s counsel of choice; (2) he failed to investigate any of the Government’s witnesses; (3) he failed to call a key defense witness; (4) he failed to file a motion to suppress challenging the stop of his vehicle on the day of his arrest. Because Burton did not present these claims to theNo. 03-41632 -3- district court, the record is not sufficiently developed for us to review the claims at this time and we decline to consider them without prejudice to Burton’s right to raise them in a subsequent collateral proceeding. See United States v. Valuck , 286 F.3d 221, 229 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1000 (2002).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009224EN.01000201.xml

| 17.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5568 — Volkswagen/Fleet Investments/Leaseplan Corporation JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 224/03

On 19 August 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5568. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5568. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelly Sloan, Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Goldfluss, J.), rendered on November 10, 1983, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We *650have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Bloom, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
#### PETRIE, Respondent, v. ENOS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Action by James Petrie against William H. Enos, as sheriff of Oswego county.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1830 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1830

 To extend the duty suspension on 3-amino-2'-(sulfato-ethyl sulfonyl) 
                            ethyl benzamide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2005

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the duty suspension on 3-amino-2'-(sulfato-ethyl sulfonyl) 
                            ethyl benzamide.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 3-AMINO-2'-(SULFATO-ETHYL SULFONYL) ETHYL BENZAMIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.30.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 3-amino-2'-(sulfato-ethyl 
sulfonyl) ethyl benzamide) is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1842 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1842

   To suspend temporarily the duty on a mixture of Poly[[6-[(1,1,3,3-
 tetramethylbutyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diyl][(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-
       4-piperidinyl)imino]-1,6-exanediyl[(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
          piperidinyl)imino]]) and Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4-
                          piperidyl)sebaceate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2005

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on a mixture of Poly[[6-[(1,1,3,3-
 tetramethylbutyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diyl][(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-
       4-piperidinyl)imino]-1,6-exanediyl[(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
          piperidinyl)imino]]) and Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4-
                          piperidyl)sebaceate.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MIXTURE OF POLY[[6-[(1,1,3,3-TETRAMETHYLBUTYL)AMINO]-1,3,5-
              TRIAZINE-2,4-DIYL][(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4-
              PIPERIDINYL)IMINO]-1,6-EXANEDIYL[(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4-
              PIPERIDINYL)IMINO]]) AND BIS(2,2,6,6,-TETRAMETHYL-4-
              PIPERIDYL)SEBACEATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.04.71       Mixture of         Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         Poly[[6-[(1,1,3,3-                                                 31/2008
                         tetramethylbutyl)
                         amino]-1,3,5-
                         triazine-2,4-
                         diyl][(2,2,6,6-
                         tetramethyl-4-
                         piperidinyl)imino
                         ]-1,6-
                         exanediyl[(2,2,6,
                         6-tetramethyl-4-
                         piperidinyl)imino
                         ]]) and
                         Bis(2,2,6,6,-
                         tetramethyl-4-
                         piperidyl)sebacea
                         te (CAS Nos.
                         71878-19-8 and
                         52829-07-9)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3812.30.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2326 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, 

North Carolina, as the ‘‘Floyd Lupton Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 2326 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North 

4 Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Floyd 

5 Lupton Post Office’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Floyd Lupton Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1370 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

D. C. Docket N o. 03-61674 -CV -JIC JOSEP H D. HARBAUGH, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us CHRIS TIAN RENE GRESLIN, et al ., Defen da nt s, PYRROS N. VARDINOYANNIS, Inter pleader-Appellee. Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida (F eb ru ar y 27 , 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , W IL SO N a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T he sol e iss ue in thi s a

ppe al is w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in2

dis m iss ing appe lla nt’ s in te rp le ad er c om pla int a ga ins t t he im

ple ad ed thi rd pa rt y f or lack of personal j urisdictio n. I n its dis posit ive order of June 2, 2006, the district

co ur t c onc lud ed

tha t a ppe lla nt “ fa ile d to sa tis fy a ny j ur isd ic tio na l pr er equis ite s of Fl or ida ’ s lo ng- ar

m sta tut e. ” T he re fo re , the c ourt di d no t pr oc ee d w ith the se co nd aspect of personal j urisdictio n analy sis, i.e ., whether exerc ising j urisdictio n over th e th ird pa rty woul d d en y th at pa rty du e p ro ces s o f la w. W e fi nd n o e rr or

in the c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at appe lla nt f

ai le d to

es ta bli sh t he j ur isd ic tio na l pr er equis ite s of F lor ida ’ s lo ng- ar

m sta tut e, a nd t hus af fi rm the c ourt’ s di sm iss al of

the int er ple ad er c om pla int

. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Fenggang Wu, Chief Financial Officer of Cougar Holdings Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |  |  | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented therein.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



/s/ FENGGANG WUFenggang WuChief Financial OfficerApril 7, 2007
#### PARKER, Appellant, v. ALTONWOOD PARK CO. OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by K. Webber Parker, suing in her own behalf, against the Altonwood Park Company of New York and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000408

07-SEP-2018

08:13 AM
#### SMOCK, Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS’ MUT. ACCIDENT ASS’N OF AMERICA, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1913.)

Action by Annie B. S. Smock against the Commercial Travelers’Mutual Accident Association of America. D. Edwards, of fjew York City, for appellant. E. W. Tyler, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.