alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3

GMAC Mortgage
----


February 28, 2006

RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS
TRUST ADMINISTRATION
c/o DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
1761 EAST ST. ANDREW PLACE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705


Re:   Annual Officers Statement of Compliance
      Year Ending 2005
      GMACM Investor Agreement # 41344  2005-AR4

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

GMAC Mortgage Corporation ("GMACM") hereby certifies to the best of our
knowledge and belief, that for the calendar year 2005:

1.    A review of the activities of the Seller / Servicer and of performance
      according to the Seller / Servicer contract has been made under such
      Officer's supervision.

2.    To the best of the undersigned Officer's knowledge, and based on such
      review, the Seller / Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this
      Agreement for such year.

3.    GMACM is currently an approved FNMA and FHLMC Servicer in good standing.

4.    If applicable, GMACM has filed the information returns with respect to the
      receipt of mortgage interest pursuant to Sections 6050H, 6050J and 6050P
      of the Code, received in a trade or business, reports of foreclosures and
      abandonment's of any Mortgaged Property and the information returns
      relating to cancellation of indebtedness income with respect to any
      Mortgaged Property.

5.    All hazard, flood, FHA mortgage insurance and primary mortgage insurance
      premiums, taxes, ground rents, assessments and other lienable items have
      been paid in connection with the mortgaged properties.

6.    All property inspections have been completed as required.

7.    Compliance relative to Adjustable Rate Mortgages has been met.

8.    Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Insurance coverage is current, in
      full force and effect.


Servicer:      GMAC Mortgage Corporation

By:            /s/ Michael Kacergis
               ----------------------------------------------

Name:          Michael Kacergis

Title:         Manager
               Enterprise Risk Management
               Enterprise Servicing Group Risk and Compliance


GMAC Mortgage Corporation
500 Enterprise Road
Horsham, PA 19044
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5794FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

 AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND GRANTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

The Defendants moved for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 Civil Rights complaint

wherein Plaintiff seeks monetary damages stemming from a fight with another inmate while he was in

custody at McNeil Island Correctional Center and two related infractions incurred. Defendants argue five

points in moving for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s response to the summary judgment motion was due

January 22, 2007, and he was advised of the consequences of failing to file opposition to a summary

judgment motion. 

Plaintiff, on February 21, 2007, purports to file an opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment. Plaintiff makes a brief statement of the facts and issues and evidence on which he

relies.. Plaintiff has failed to rebut the arguments and facts presented by the Defendants, however. His

good time credits were restored and the infractions were removed form his record. There are no individual

claims against Defendants Payne and Lehman other than to name them in their official capacity. Other than

Plaintiff’s statement that he made a good faith effort to serve Defendants Williams, Anderson and Allen,

there is no showing that they have been served. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as there

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a constitutional violation in the events surrounding his disciplinary

Case 3:05-cv-05794-FDB Document 34 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER

Page - 2

proceedings. For all the reasons argued by Defendants as well as Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely response

to the motion for summary judgment, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation are grant

Defendants summary judgment. 

 The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff’s causes of action are DISMISSED; and plaintiff’s pending motions, if any, are

denied as being moot;

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold

DATED this 6th day of March 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05794-FDB Document 34 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-02121-JCC Document 1 Filed 12/23/05 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02121-JCC Document 1 Filed 12/23/05 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02121-JCC Document 1 Filed 12/23/05 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02121-JCC Document 1 Filed 12/23/05 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02121-JCC Document 1 Filed 12/23/05 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-02121-JCC Document 1 Filed 12/23/05 Page 6 of 6
No. 63917.

protest 59/10687 (New York).

#### William H. Miles *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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

ORDER EXTENDING SERVICE DEADLINE - 1

[MS06-82-RSM-MAT]

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

 Magistrate Judge Theiler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. MS06-82-RSM-MAT

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) [PROPOSED]

) ORDER EXTENDING

STEVEN KISH, ) SERVICE DEADLINE

)

Respondent. ) )

The United States’ Motion to Extend Service Deadline is GRANTED. The

service deadline is hereby extended to the 17th day of July, 2006.

DATED this 16th day of June, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented by:

s/Kristin B. Johnson 

KRISTIN B. JOHNSON, WSBA #28189

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:06-cv-00926-JCC-MAT Document 7 Filed 06/16/2006 Page 1 of 2

United States of America v. Kish Doc. 7

Dockets.Justia.com
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

ORDER EXTENDING SERVICE DEADLINE - 2

[MS06-82-RSM-MAT]

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that she is an employee in the Office of the United

States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, and is a person of such age and

discretion as to be competent to serve papers.

That, on June 15, 2006, she electronically filed the foregoing document(s), Order

Extending Service Deadline, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of

such filing to the following CM/ECF participants:

-0-

That on June 15, 2006, she caused a copy of this Order Extending Service

Deadline, to be served upon the individual hereinafter named by first class mail, postage

prepaid as follows: 

Steven Kish

13810 NE 71st PL

Redmond, Washington 98052

Steven Kish

14150 NE 20th St. #75

Bellevue, Washington 98007

Dated this 15th day of June, 2006.

s/Lisa M. Lindquist 

 LISA M. LINDQUIST

Legal Assistant

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5200

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Telephone: (206) 553-7970

Facsimile: (206) 553-4073

E-mail: Lisa.Lindquist@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cv-00926-JCC-MAT Document 7 Filed 06/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
No. 57051.

protests 191088-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Philadelphia Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 63898.

protests 59/24647 and 59/25190 (Tampa).

#### Fruit & Easter Basket Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60353

Summary Calendar

ROZY RAJWANY

Petitioner

v.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Respondent

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

A70-812-229

-------------------- February 27, 2003

Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rozy Rajwany petitions this court for review of the order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from

the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of

deportation.

Upon review of Rajwany’s claims, we find substantial evidence

to support the BIA’s conclusion that Rajwany failed to establish a

nexus between the specific events of alleged persecution she

testified to and her status as a Bihari. E fe v. Ashcroft

, 293 F.3dNo. 02-60353

-2-

2 A “refugee” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) is a person

who is outside of her country and is unable or unwilling to

return “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The [BIA]’s factual conclusions are

reviewed for substantial evidence.”); Faddoul v. INS

, 37 F.3d 185,

188 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[A]bsent dispositive error of law, we must

affirm the [BIA]’s determination that [the petitioner] was

ineligible for asylum or withholding of deportation if we find that

its decision was supported by substantial evidence in the

record.”); Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS , 929 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.

1991) (“As long as the [BIA]’s conclusion is substant ially

reasonable, we can not reverse the finding simply because we

disagree with the [BIA]’s evaluation of the facts.”).

The BIA’s dismissal of Rajwany’s appeal based on its

determination that Rajwany did not establish either past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in

Bangladesh on account of a ground enumerated under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A) is AFFIRMED. 2 Because Rajwany does not meet the

standard for asylum, she also does not meet the standard for

withholding of deportation. E fe

, 293 F.3d at 906. Accordingly, to

the extent her application is treated as a request for withholding

of deportation, such request (and all other requests not herein

granted) is DENIED.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-20285 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Toni Gale Engeling, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:19-CR-129-2 

Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges,

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Toni Gale Engeling has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Engeling has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

February 22, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-20285 Document: 00516652362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2023
No. 22-20285 

2 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, 

and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-20285 Document: 00516652362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2023
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 133

Expressing the sense of the Senate that every handgun sold in the United

States should include a child safety device.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 9, 1997

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. KOHL, Mr. CHAFEE, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr.

KENNEDY, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. JEFFORDS,

Mr. HARKIN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. REED, Mr. INOUYE,

Mr. AKAKA, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr.

WELLSTONE, and Mr. ROBB) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that every handgun sold

in the United States should include a child safety device.

Whereas eight leading American gun manufacturers have now

agreed to include child safety devices on their handguns;

Whereas each year, nearly 40,000 Americans are killed by

firearms;

Whereas more than 500 children are killed accidentally each

year by gunshots;

Whereas many of these deaths and injuries are caused by

handguns manufactured in the United States;
2

SRES 133 IS

Whereas a simple child safety device could have prevented at

least some of these deaths and injuries; and

Whereas there are still a number of American gun makers,

including some of the nation’s largest, who have not committed to including a child safety device on their guns:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that every

2 American handgun manufacturer should voluntarily begin

3 equipping all new handguns with child safety devices.

Æ
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 3 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 4 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 5 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 6 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 7 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 8 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 9 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 10 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-05781-RBL Document 1-2 Filed 12/02/05 Page 11 of 11
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 8 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 8

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that expenditures for a fiscal year shall exceed neither 
 revenues for such fiscal year nor 19 per centum of the Nation's gross 
domestic product for the last calendar year ending before the beginning 
                          of such fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1997

Mr. Kyl 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 
   provide that expenditures for a fiscal year shall exceed neither 
 revenues for such fiscal year nor 19 per centum of the Nation's gross 
domestic product for the last calendar year ending before the beginning 
                          of such fiscal year.

    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 after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Except as provided in this article, outlays of the 
United States Government for any fiscal year may not exceed its 
receipts for that fiscal year.
    ``Section 2. Except as provided in this article, the outlays of the 
United States Government for a fiscal year may not exceed 19 per centum 
of the Nation's gross domestic product for the last calendar year 
ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
    ``Section 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for suspension of 
the effect of sections 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for 
which three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide, by 
a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or 
over 19 per centum of the Nation's gross domestic product for the last 
calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
    ``Section 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the 
United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total 
outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government 
except those for the repayment of debt principal.
    ``Section 5. This article shall apply to the second fiscal year 
beginning after its ratification and to subsequent fiscal years, but 
not to fiscal years beginning before October 1, 2001.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6635

JOHNNY WAYNE GAY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, FCI Edgefield, 

 Respondent - Appellee, 

 and 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

 Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (2:08-cv-03624-GRA) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 2, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Johnny Wayne Gay, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Johnny Wayne Gay, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Gay v. LaManna, No. 2:08-cv-03624-GRA 

(D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2009). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         340,727
<SECURITIES>                                   111,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                  302,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,741
<INVENTORY>                                    214,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,101,139
<PP&E>                                         447,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,532,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          330,213
<BONDS>                                        110,080
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,885
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,090,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,532,708
<SALES>                                        522,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               522,654
<CGS>                                          249,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,915
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,954
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,747
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,625
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-08-00672-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

DANIEL RUIZ GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 206th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Daniel Ruiz Garcia, attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for

murder. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Sentence in this matter was imposed on August 6, 2008. No motion for new trial

was filed. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on November 20, 2008, stating that the

notice of appeal was being filed beyond the thirty day period due to counsel’s failure to file

a notice of appeal. On March 6, 2009, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it

appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellant was advised that the appeal

would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt

of the Court’s directive. Appellant has not responded to this notice. 

Unless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed

within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after

the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a

timely motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety

days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2).

The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the

deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying

with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3.

Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than three months after sentence was

imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Slaton,

981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a

post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals;

however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988

S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 21st day of May, 2009.