alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 1 OF 2 

MWZM: 22-000121-375 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

HAYWOOD, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

TEXAS REALATOR, et al., 

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-2174-C-BT 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC’S AND 

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT 

TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(5) 

Defendants PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (“PennyMac”) and Mackie Wolf Zientz & 

Mann PC (“MWZM”, collectively “Defendants”), file this Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and respectfully show the Court as follows: 

I. 

Plaintiff Tianikwa Haywood (“Plaintiff”) in her Objection to Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss [ECF No. 13] offers nothing to suggest that she properly served either Defendant. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, service of summons and complaint by regular United States mail 

is not permitted under either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Further, Plaintiff in her Response says nothing about service on PennyMac. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants respectfully request this 

Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint with prejudice and grant Defendants all other relief to which 

it may be entitled. 

Case 3:22-cv-02174-K-BT Document 14 Filed 11/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 64
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 2 OF 2 

MWZM: 22-000121-375 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Mark D. Cronenwett 

 MARK D. CRONENWETT 

Attorney in Charge 

 Texas Bar No. 00787303 

 mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com 

 

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P. C. 

14160 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 900 

Dallas, TX 75254 

Telephone: (214) 635-2650 

Facsimile: (214) 635-2686 

Attorneys for Defendants Mackie Wolf Zientz & 

Mann, P.C. and PennyMac Loan Services, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned further certifies that on November 8, 2022, a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing document was delivered via regular United States mail to the following counsel of 

record: 

Tianikwa Haywood 

3222 Burgundy Lane 

Midlothian, Texas 76065 

Pro Se Plaintiff 

/s/ Mark D. Cronenwett 

 MARK D. CRONENWETT

Case 3:22-cv-02174-K-BT Document 14 Filed 11/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 65
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SHELLEY GIPSON,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-cv-0730-P

WEATHERFORD COLLEGE 

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(“Motion”). ECF No. 28. Having reviewed the Motion and the applicable 

law, the Court concludes that there are genuine disputes of material 

facts that prevent judgment from being rendered as a matter of law.

Therefore, the Motion should be, and it is hereby, DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on this 10th day of February 2023.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 72 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 922
#### Ex parte WELCH.

No. 26059.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 26, 1952.

C. S. Farmer, Waco, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

■Relator is confined in the’ penitentiary under a 3-year sentence from Palo Pinto County, the judgment having been affirmed by this Court. See Welch v. State, Tex. Cr;App., 219 S.W.2d 804.

The judgment of conviction is attacked as defective and void because not in compliance with sections 9 and 10 of Art. 766, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

It has now been made to appear that the judgment as rendered and entered in. the trial court is not subject to the defects appearing in the judgment shown in the transcript. Appellant’s counsel concedes that under such facts his client is not entitled to release. .

The relief prayed for is denied.

Opinion approved by the Court.
United States Steel Corporation

– Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request April 24, 2012
**Item 14** For the period from January 1,2002, to the date of receipt of this letter, provide NO X emissions data from each indurating furnace for each day , and also for a thirty

- day rolling average. **Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or**  **were consulted in the preparation of the response:** Teresa Simetkosky **Answer:** Lines 3

- 5 The initial NOx RATA test was performed in January /February 2007. The initial SO2 RATA test was performed in July 2008. Lines 6

- 7 Th e initial NOx RATA test was performed in June 2005. However, dail y data was onl y able to be collected from September 8, 2005 to current. The initial SO2 RATA test was performed in July 2008. As per the conference call between USEPA and U. S. Steel on Apr il 12, 2012, the 30 day rolling average is provided from 10/1/2007 to current. The 4 th quarter 2007 is when the 30 day rolling average was initially instituted as it was required b y the Administrative Order b y Consent (AOC) with MPCA and submitted in the quarterl y BART report submitted to the MPCA per the AOC
.
1

Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms

July 26, 2023

Update on 2020 Committee Recommendations

Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms
2

2020 ACRSM Recommendations for Further Study

2

As part of an upcoming TRIA Effectiveness Study, Treasury / FIO should consider studying the following issues:

❖ Short-Term:

➢ Cyber: Evaluate the evolving cyber market in the context of the Program, including the issues set forth on slide 22 of this report.

➢ NCBR: Explore (i) whether a change of the cap, IMARA, and deductibles for NCBR are appropriate; (ii) if not, how to address

growing uninsured NCBR risk above the $100B cap; and (iii) consideration and analysis of NCBR fire following laws and 

exclusion/inclusion statistics

➢ Certification Process: Explore ways to resolve uncertainty over the certification process, including:

➢ clarification regarding the extent to which cyber incidents that occur outside the U.S. with damage outside the U.S., but with impacts both 

inside and outside the U.S., are covered and the related certification process;

➢ requiring the Secretary to commence a review upon receipt of a written petition by a TRIP participant that can demonstrate at least $5 million 

in losses or in industry aggregate losses; and

➢ considering shortening certain timelines and increasing the requirement to provide public notices, including: (i)shortening the 30-day

notification period for Treasury to notify the public it has commenced a review; (ii) requiring the Secretary to provide public updates of the 

status of review; and (iii)shortening the 60-day period in which the Secretary must announce an extension of a review.

❖ Long-Term:

➢ IMARA: Given recent addition of IMARA to the program construct, FIO should look at its impact on the program of indexing IMARA.

➢ Recoupment: What is the appropriate recoupment? Should there be a mechanism to prevent the government from recouping 

more than it paid for a terrorist attack?

➢ Alternative Carrier Mechanisms: Examine ways to limit the incentives to use alternative carrier mechanisms that shift virtually all of

their terrorism risk to other policyholders and insurers, including calculating deductibles and co-shares from a number other than

Direct Earned Premium for certain types of insurers. Consider the fact that the existing program could expose the unfairness of the

program post single parent loss, particularly the issue of recoupment and how much is allocated to the industry vs. the alternative 

carrier mechanism.

➢ Risk Transfer: Explore ways for Treasury to facilitate risk transfer to global risk markets, including the effect pre-funding 

mechanisms might have on the program and the existing insurance market.

➢ Non-Profits Availability & Affordability: Consider expanding the study called for under the 2019 Reauthorization Act
| (logo)  **ncb**  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011  Crystal Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

#  February 6, 2019

 

WellsFargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor

Attn:AJ Sfarra

375Park Avenue, 2nd Floor

J0127-023

NewYork, NY 10152

 

RE:         Annual Statement as to Compliance

               WFCM 2015 C29

 

DearSir/Madam:

 

Inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connectionwith the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2015-C29, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerlyNCB, FSB (the “NCB Special Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section11.12 thereof that:

 

a.       A review of the activities of the NCB Special Servicer during the precedingcalendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Poolingand Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.       To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Special Servicerhas fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

Pleasenote that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover onor before March 31, 2019.

 

 

Bestregards,

/s/Karyn Mann

KarynMann

SeniorVice President, Investor Compliance

NationalCooperative Bank, N.A.
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0304 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM EDDIE MOODY ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 3 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including January 3 1 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 8 2021

12/08/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0304
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 227 (Friday, November 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on Logistics Transformation 
Phase II; Notice of Meeting

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Logistics 
Transformation Phase II was held in closed session on November 15-16, 
2000, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22203.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Task 
Force will review and evaluate DoD's progress on the transformation of 
the DoD logistics system. In addition, the Task Force will review 
future plans and programs to determine their compliance with the 
recommendations contained in the 1998 DSB report on DoD Logistics 
Transformation; determine the nature of barriers inhibiting the rapid 
transformation of the system, paying particular attention to technical, 
legal, and operational issues; and determining if any future 
implementation actions are required.
    Due to critical mission requirements, there is insufficient time to 
provide timely notice required by Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act and Subsection 101-6.1015(b) of the GSA Final 
Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR Part 101-6, which 
further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the 
meeting of the Task Force on November 15-16, 2000.
    Persons interested in further information should call Commander 
Brian D. Hughes, USN, at (703) 695-4157.

    Dated: November 16, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-29934 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
IA 

103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 93 

For the relief of Alexander Vraciu. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 1993 

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

For the relief of Alexander Vraciu. 

Whereas the World War II commanding officer of then Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu and all of the 7 firing line 

commanders who were there and knew what happened, 

recommended Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu for the 

Congressional Medal of Honor; 

Whereas Admiral G.D. Murray, at Pearl Harbor Headquarters, improperly processed the recommendation and 

wrongfully deleted part of the 4 mission citation indicating with tortuous, if not contorted logic, to wit: ‘‘His 

superior performance of normal duties brought distinction upon himself. His failure, if it had occurred, to engage the enemy, on 19 June 1944, would have brought 

censure upon himself’’; 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 93 IH 

Whereas at that time Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu was 

the leading Navy flying ace, having shot down 19 enemy 

aircraft and destroyed 21 planes on the ground; 

Whereas in one engagement alone, Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander 

Vraciu, dismissing thoughts of self, plunged into the fray 

and destroyed 6 attacking enemy bomber aircraft in 8 

minutes’ time, quite clearly performing far above and beyond the call of duty; 

Whereas Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu alone sank a 

large and significant enemy cargo vessel and shot down 

2 additional enemy planes and materially assisted our 

bombers in sinking an enemy carrier—all in a matter of 

a few days; 

Whereas Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu was shot down 2 

different times in the thick of battle and welter of antiaircraft enemy fire, selflessly and repeatedly venturing 

his entire moral being for the life of his country: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO ALEXANDER 

4 VRACIU. 

5 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 6248 

6 of title 10, United States Code (relating to the award of 

7 the Medal of Honor), the President shall award a Medal 

8 of Honor to Alexander Vraciu of Danville, California, in 

9 accordance with the decision of Vraciu’s commanding offi10 cer at sea and pursuant to section 6241 of that title, for 

11 his superlatively heroic service to our Nation. 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HJ 93 IH 

Æ 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSHUA WILLIAM JACKSON, §

ID #54191-177, §

§

Movant, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-778-L-BH

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

(“Report”) (Doc. 4) was entered on April 13, 2022, recommending that Movant’s Motion for Order 

Vacating Judgement [sic] Order or Sentence Under Common Law Writ of Audita Querela/ Coram 

Nobis/ Coram Vobis or Alternative Writs Under the All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (“Motion”), 

filed on April 5, 2022 (Doc. 3), be construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, 

set aside, or correct a federal sentence and transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). No objections to the Report were filed as of the date 

of this order, and the deadline for filing objections has expired.

When a petition is deemed successive, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

unless a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allows the 

successive petition to proceed. After reviewing the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, 

the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct,

and accepts them as those of the court. 

Case 3:22-cv-00778-L-BH Document 5 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 19
Order – Page 2

Accordingly, the court directs the clerk of the court to transfer the Motion in this case to 

the Fifth Circuit for determination.

It is so ordered this 27th day of May, 2022.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00778-L-BH Document 5 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 20
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 346 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 346

     Designating September 25, 1994, as ``Gold Star Mothers Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1994

Mr. Coyne introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
           to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
     Designating September 25, 1994, as ``Gold Star Mothers Day''.

Whereas the services rendered to the United States by the mothers of America 
        have strengthened and inspired our Nation throughout our history;
Whereas we honor ourselves and the mothers of America when we revere and 
        emphasize the role of the home and the family as the true foundations of 
        our Nation;
Whereas by doing so much for the home, the American mother is a source of moral 
        and spiritual guidance for the people of the United States and thus acts 
        as a positive force to promote good government and peace among all 
        mankind;
Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers assist veterans of the Armed Forces and 
        their dependents in the presentation of claims to the Veterans' 
        Administration, and aid the men and women who served and died or were 
        wounded or incapacitated during hostilities; and
Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of 
        motherhood by losing sons and daughters who served in the Armed 
        Services, and thus perpetuate the memory of all whose lives were 
        sacrificed in our wars: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That September 25, 1994, is 
designated as ``Gold Star Mothers Day'', and the President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate 
ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3608 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act of October 19, 1973, concerning taxable 

income to members of the Grand Portage Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians. 

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

•HR 3608 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Grand Portage Band 

3 Per Capita Adjustment Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EQUAL TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PER CAPITA IN5 COME FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL ASSIST6 ANCE. 

7 Paragraph (4) of section 7 of the Act of October 19, 

8 1973 (25 U.S.C. 1407(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘pursu9 ant to the agreements of such Band’’ and inserting ‘‘or 

10 the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indi11 ans, or both, pursuant to the agreements of each Band’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3608 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act of October 19, 1973, concerning 

Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. taxable income to members of the Grand Portage
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,456
<SECURITIES>                                   109,238
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,462
<PP&E>                                          14,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,211
<BONDS>                                          6,208
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,618
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,405)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,405)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.69)
        

</TABLE>
#### LILLEY v. STATE.

No. 21415.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 5, 1941.

No attorney for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant has filed a brief in this cause asking that the appeal be dismissed, as well as the prosecution in the court below. Several complaints in his motion, or brief and' argument, whichever he intended it should be, complain of the irregular procedure through which appellant has been compelled to go. Some of the things stated by him would be subjects for consideration by this court if he had brought them here properly by record and had effectively invoked the jurisdiction of this court. We even find more irregularities than he mentions. Plowever, it appears that they are chargeable to the diligence of appellant and not altogether to the prosecution.

First, there is no caption stowing when the term of court began and ended. Second, there is no judgment of conviction to be found in the record. The clerk has copied-only what appears to be a docket memorandum of the jury’s action, which does not purport to be a judgment of the court thereon. Third, a motion for new trial was filed in the case. The record does not show that this motion was ever acted on. Fourth, a bond was filed by appellant and, as copied in the transcript before us, is fatally defective in that it permits the appellant to “depart without leave of this court, in order to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State Texas.”

Finally and fatally from “kivver to kivver” there is no notice of appeal, without which this court has no jurisdiction of the irregularities either of the prosecution or of the defense. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.