The opinion
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 1 of 18
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12243
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JENNIFER CORNETT MANN-MACKEY,
Widower of Carl Mackey, former RRB Employee,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Railroad Retirement Board
Agency No. 17-AP-0034
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 2 of 18
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Cornett Mann-Mackey, proceeding pro se, petitions
us for review of the United States Railroad Retirement Board’s
(“RRB”) decision that she was not without fault as to an overpay-
ment in the amount of $30,757.59 and, therefore, that waiver of
recovery was not warranted. Mann-Mackey argues that she was
not required to report the self-employment income because it fell
under an exception to the reporting requirements of the Railroad
Retirement Act (“RRA”), which were set forth in the forms she was
provided when she applied for a spouse annuity. She also argues
that recovery of this overpayment would cause financial hardship
that would warrant the waiver of recovery. In response, RRB ar-
gues that Mann-Mackey was required to report her self-employ-
ment income and therefore was not without fault in causing the
overpayment. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the peti-
tion.
I.
Jennifer Mann-Mackey was born in 1945, and was married
to Carl Mackey, a railroad employee, until his death. Mann-
Mackey applied for a spouse annuity with the RRB on April 18,
2005 and the RRB awarded her an annuity beginning July 1, 2005.
From 2010 to 2014, Mann-Mackey was overpaid benefits under the
RRA.
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 3 of 18
22-12243 Opinion of the Court 3
The Railroad Retirement Act sets the eligibility require-
ments that the spouse of a covered railroad annuitant must meet
to receive a spouse annuity. 45 U.S.C. § 231a(c). The RRA requires
work deductions to be applied to the Tier 1 component of a spouse
annuity pursuant to the Social Security Act in the same manner as
if the component were a benefit under the Social Security Act. 45
U.S.C. § 231a(f)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 403. The Social Security Admin-
istration (“SSA”) promulgated regulations implementing the an-
nual exempt amount. 42 U.S.C. § 403 (providing detailed criteria
for reduction of social security insurance benefits based on, inter
alia, the individual’s wages and self-employment income);
20 C.F.R. § 404.430 (defining monthly and annual exempt amounts
and defining excess earnings). Section 2(f)(1) of the RRA requires
that any person receiving an annuity that is subject to these work
deductions report to the RRB the receipt of “excess earnings.”
45 U.S.C. § 231a(f)(1).
If the RRB finds that, at any time, more than the correct
amount of annuities or other benefits has been paid to an individ-
ual, recovery by adjustment may be made. 45 U.S.C. § 231i(a).
There are, however, exceptions in which the RRB will not recover
overpayments. Section 231i(c) provides that “[t]here shall be no
recovery in any case in which more than the correct amount of an-
nuities or other benefits has been paid under this under this sub-
chapter to an individual or payment has been made to an individual
not entitled thereto who, in the judgment of the Board, is without
fault when, in the judgment of the Board, recovery would be con-
trary to the purpose of this subchapter or the Railroad
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 4 of 18
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
Unemployment Insurance Act or would be against equity or good
conscience.” Id. § 231i(c). The RRB “shall establish and promul-
gate rules and regulations to provide for the adjustment of all con-
troversial matters arising in the administration of this subchapter.”
Id. § 231f(b)(5).
The RRB’s regulations provide for this same waiver of re-
covery, stating that there shall be no recovery of any overpayment
if in the judgment of the RRB: (a) the overpaid individual is without
fault, and (b) recovery would be contrary to the purpose of the
RRA or would be against equity or good conscience. 20 C.F.R.
§ 255.10(a)-(b). The purpose of the RRA is to pay retirement and
survivor annuities and other benefits to eligible beneficiaries. Id.
§ 255.12. “It is contrary to the purpose of the [RRA] for an over-
payment to be recovered from income and resources which the in-
dividual requires to meet ordinary and necessary living expenses.”
Id. However, if income, resources, or a combination thereof, are
sufficient to meet such expenses, then recovery of an overpayment
is not contrary to the purpose of the RRA. Id. “Recovery is con-
sidered to be against equity or good conscience if a person, in reli-
ance on payments made to him or her on notice that payment
would be made, relinquished a significant and valuable right . . . or
changed his or her position to his or her substantial detriment . . . .”
20 C.F.R. § 255.13(a). However, “[a]n individual’s ability to repay
an overpayment is not material to a finding that recovery would be
against equity or good conscience but is relevant with respect to
the credibility of a claim of detrimental reliance . . . .”
Id. § 255.13(b).
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 5 of 18
22-12243 Opinion of the Court 5
Before recovery of an overpayment may be waived, it must
be determined that the overpaid individual was without fault, and
fault is defined as “a defect of judgment or conduct arising from
inattention or bad faith.” Id. § 255.11(a), (b). “Judgment or con-
duct is defective when it deviates from a standard of reasonable
care taken to comply with the entitlement provisions of this chap-
ter. Conduct includes both action and inaction.” Id. § 255.11(b).
In determining fault, the RRB also considers all of the circum-
stances surrounding the overpayment, including: “the ability of the
overpaid individual to understand the reporting requirements of
the Railroad Retirement Act or to realize that he or she is being
overpaid (e.g., age, education, comprehension, physical and men-
tal condition); the particular cause of non-entitlement to benefits;
and the number of instances in which the individual may have
made erroneous statements.” Id. § 255.11(c).
Circumstances in which the RRB will find an individual at
fault include, but are not limited to: (1) failure to furnish the RRB
information which the individual knew or should have known to
be material; (2) an incorrect statement made by the individual
which he or she knew or should have known was incorrect; and (3)
failure to return a payment which the individual knew or should
have known was incorrect. Id. § 255.11(d)(1)(i)-(iii). If any of those
circumstances has occurred, the individual shall be presumed to be
not without fault, but this presumption may be rebutted by presen-
tation of evidence by the individual. Id. § 255.11(d)(2). Further, for
the purposes of (d)(1)(i), furnishing information to the Social Secu-
rity Administration or any other agency shall not be considered to
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 6 of 18
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
constitute furnishing information to the RRB. Id. § 255.11(d)(3).
An error on the part of the agency does not extinguish fault on the
part of the individual. Id. § 255.11(d)(4). As relevant, the RRB will
find an individual not at fault if the overpayment is the result of
RRB error of which the overpaid individual was not aware and
could not reasonably have expected to be aware. Id. § 255.11(e)(1).
As part of her application for annuity benefits, she certified
that she had “received and reviewed the booklets RB-30 Spouse
Annuity and RB-9 Employee and Spouse Annuities – Events that
Must be Reported” (“Form RB-30” and “Form RB-9,” respectively)
and that she understood that she was responsible for reporting
events that would affect her annuity. She also agreed to immedi-
ately notify the RRB if she earned over the annual earnings exempt
amount. Along with her application, Mann-Mackey submitted a
signed “Self-Employment and Substantial Service Questionnaire,”
where she listed herself as a sole proprietor of a business and a pro-
fessional counselor. She stated that she began providing services
on November 1, 1997, and confirmed that the payments she re-
ceived for those services were reported to the Internal Revenue
Service (“IRS”).
Form RB-30 provided, in relevant part, that earnings from
nonrailroad employment, including self-employment, after an an-
nuity began could cause work deductions. The form also provided
that if the applicant worked for an incorporated business that the
applicant owned, the RRB did not consider that work self-employ-
ment. The form explained that railroad retirement annuities are
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 7 of 18
22-12243 Opinion of the Court 7
calculated under a two-tier formula, with Tier 1 being based on
railroad retirement credits and social security credits the employee
has acquired and Tier 2 being based on railroad retirement credits
only. The form described the Tier 1 annuity deductions, which
provided that earnings from any nonrailroad employment, includ-
ing self-employment, over the annual earnings exempt amount
could cause work deductions to the spouse annuity Tier 1 compo-
nent. It also described the Tier 2 component work deductions,
which required employee annuitants to report earnings from their
own “Last Pre-Retirement Nonrailroad Employer (LPE),” defined
as “any nonrailroad individual, company or institution for whom
you are working on the date your spouse annuity begins or for
whom you stopped working in order to receive an annuity.” Earn-
ings from self-employment or other non-railroad employment
were not added to LPE earnings when computing Tier 2 compo-
nent work deductions.
Form RB-9 provided that whether a person was receiving
their own annuity or payments on behalf of another person, it was
the receiver’s responsibility to be aware of events that could affect
their annuity and notify the RRB immediately if any of the relevant
events occurred. The form further provided that “[f]ailure to
promptly notify the RRB usually constitutes ‘fault’ on your part
that requires you to repay any resulting overpayment.” Form RB-
9 described how Tier 1 earnings restrictions apply to gross earnings
from employment for others, as well as any net earnings from self-
employment, and how the net self-employment amount was the
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 8 of 18
8 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
earnings amount after business expenses that were reported to the
IRS. As to Tier 2, Form RB-9 provided a list of various LPE Excep-
tions that did not affect payment of the annuity, which included
“[w]ork as member (owner) of a Limited Liability Corporation
(LLC)” and “self-employment.”
In a July 1, 2005, letter, Mann-Mackey was awarded a spouse
annuity of $1,323.81 to begin on the same date. The Tier 1 com-
ponent of the annuity was $825.00, and the Tier 2 component was
$498.81. From 2010 through 2014, the annual earnings exempt
amounts were $14,160, $14,160, $14,640, $15,120, and $15,480, re-
spectively. From 2010 through 2014, Mann-Mackey earned thou-
sands of dollars above the exempt amount, making $61,843,
$46,865, $37,102, $69,920.37, and $76,940.56, respectively. The
RRB’s contact log reveals no record of Mann-Mackey contacting
the board reporting those earnings or inquiring about the reporting
requirements.
On December 18, 2014, the RRB sent Mann-Mackey a letter
that stated that, after reviewing her annuity rates, it had deter-
mined that she was paid $30,757.59 more in railroad retirement
benefits than to which she was entitled. The RRB based its finding
on reported earnings from the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) for years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The RRB stated it had
temporarily adjusted Mann-Mackey’s annuity to deduct $666.00 ef-
fective with her next payment, based on her estimated earnings of
$54,934.37 for 2014. The RRB also applied a penalty deduction of
$655.00 because she had failed to timely report her earnings. The
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 9 of 18
22-12243 Opinion of the Court 9
RRB stated that it would release an annual benefit information
statement of her previous yearly railroad retirement payments, in
the form of a Form RRB-1099 and that she could fill out a form to
request her rights regarding her annuity rate change and the
amount of the current overpayment.
Mann-Mackey subsequently submitted a Rights Request
Form, requesting a review of the facts and a waiver consideration,
a personal conference, and a good-cause determination for the late
report of earnings. She also attached a letter to the form, in which
she stated that she failed to report her personal earnings for Octo-
ber 2012 to the then-present 2015 because she did not know, and
did not remember, that she had to. She specifically requested that
her W-2 earnings for 2010 and 2011 be reviewed, as they showed
that she received no personal income from her services as a pro-
vider for Wayne Behavioral Health because she never received a
salary. She then described the “grave economic hardship” that this
repayment would create for her family. She provided her hus-
band’s income, her income, and the monthly household expenses
for review and stated that neither her, nor her husband, would be
able to obtain additional employment to offset the repayment. She
concluded by asking the RRB to “take [her] ignorance of the rail-
road system, as the reason for not reporting,” and by stating she
did not fully understand that she should have been reporting her
personal income.
The RRB’s Reconsideration Section prepared a summary of
facts, which provided the following. The December 18, 2014, letter
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 10 of 18
10 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
to Mann-Mackey was incorrect and that the actual amount of her
overpayment was $40,260.72, noting that when her original over-
payment was computed, the Tier 2 work deductions were not ap-
plied in 2005 and 2006, and that the Tier 1 work deductions were
not applied to her annuity rates from January through November
2010.
A personal conference between the RRB and Mann-Mackey
was held telephonically on November 16, 2015. An internal mem-
orandum related to the conference recommended that the RRB
proceed with the recovery of the debt. After the telephonic con-
ference, and in anticipation of the decision by the RRB’s Debt Re-
covery Division, Mann-Mackey submitted a financial disclosure
statement, which provided information about her dependents, her
monthly income, the monthly household income, details of other
debts, and a summary of assets.
Then, in a March 24, 2016, letter, the RRB denied Mann-
Mackey’s request for a waiver. The RRB stated that she was origi-
nally told the overpayment was $30,757.59, but the correct amount
was $40,260.72. After deducting an accrual in the amount of
$666.00, the repayment required was $39,594.72. The RRB stated
that if she disagreed with either this decision or the summary of
facts prepared for the personal conference held on November 16,
2015, she had the right to appeal to the RRB’s Bureau of Hearings
and Appeals. Attached to this letter was the full decision, which
summarized the procedural history and provided a summary and
evaluation of the evidence, including quotes from the relevant
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 11 of 18
22-12243 Opinion of the Court 11
sections of Form RB-30 and Form RB-9. The Debt Recovery Divi-
sion found that Mann-Mackey had been furnished with sufficient
materials to put her on notice that she was supposed to report earn-
ings over the exempt amount every year and that, because she had
not done so, the RRB was not able to determine if excess earnings
and LPE work exceptions applied. It concluded that, because she
was found to be not without fault, her financial situation could not
be considered to prevent recovery of the overpayment.
On May 31, 2016, Mann-Mackey appealed that decision, ar-
guing that, according to Form RB-9, her self-employment and own-
ership of a registered LLC qualified as an LPE exception. She as-
serted that the payments were made to her company, rather than
to herself personally, and attached her company’s articles of organ-
ization, her contracts with various clients through the years 2010
to 2016, her business license, professional license, and letters of
communication with insurance companies. She also requested the
RRB to review the documentation of Form RRB-1099s she pro-
vided previously, as she had attempted to explain that certain in-
come was medical payments to her LLC, and not her directly, alt-
hough she was listed as the provider.
Then, on July 26, 2016, Mann-Mackey received a letter from
the RRB’s Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. The letter stated that
the issue in her appeal was whether the overpayment in the
amount of $39,594.72 could be waived under § 10(c) of the RRA,
which permitted waiver if both (1) the overpaid person could be
found without fault in causing or accepting the overpayment and
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 12 of 18
12 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
(2) recovery of the overpayment would deprive the individual of
funds needed for ordinary and necessary living expenses or would
be against equity or good conscience.
At a March 8, 2017, hearing, Mann-Mackey confirmed that
she wished to proceed without an attorney and testified to the fol-
lowing. She had a doctorate, and her current occupation was a
military consultant. She was aware that her spouse annuity with
the RRB was subject to an earnings limitation but did not know the
difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2. It was her understanding that
she had the responsibility to inform the RRB of any event, such as
earning over the annual earnings limitations, if she was a wage em-
ployee. She explained that she had been self-employed until 2013,
and, when she signed her application in 2005, she was told that
there would be periodic monitoring of her income, yet she was no-
tified for the first time in 2014. Mann-Mackey filled out her spouse
annuity application in person, and the person that helped her fill it
out went over it with her. She also signed the self-employment
questionnaire.
In response to a question from the hearings officer about her
wage record for the Wayne County Board of Education, Mann-
Mackey stated that she was not an employee of that board but was,
rather, an elected official from January 1, 1999, through December
31, 2006. She disputed that the earnings she received in 2005 and
2006 from the board were employment earnings. She claimed that
the earnings she reported for 2010 to 2012 were self-employment,
as she did not become a wage employee until 2013. Mann-Mackey
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 13 of 18
22-12243 Opinion of the Court 13
received the Form RB-30 and Form RB-9 but had not read or re-
viewed them afterwards nor looked at them since 2005. She was
also not aware that earnings from any non-railroad employment,
including self-employment, over the annual earnings exempt
amount could cause work deductions to her spouse annuity under
Tier 1. Until 2014, she only received annual earnings statements
from the RRB. And she did not report her earnings to the RRB for
the years 2010 to 2014.
Mann-Mackey stated that she did not willfully fail to report
but instead failed to do so because she did not remember she had
to report, based on instructions she had received back in 2005. She
read the LPE exceptions and believed that her work fell under
those exceptions because the income was not paid directly to her
as wages, but rather, because she was the sole owner of an LLC.
She reiterated that she did not think she had to report self-employ-
ment earnings.
As to her current financial situation, Mann-Mackey noted
her tax return, which was entered into the record, showed that her
family had a loss of over 50 percent of their income, totaling about
$71,000. Mann-Mackey and the hearings officer reviewed her cur-
rent total family income and household expenses, with the total
expenses coming out to $11,389, with Mann-Mackey still being
short $2,000 every month. Mann-Mackey then described how col-
lection would affect her household financially. In her closing state-
ment, she did not deny that the RRB told her in 2005 that she
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 14 of 18
14 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
needed to report her income but stated that she just did not re-
member.
On March 28, 2017, the RRB hearings officer issued a deci-
sion, determining that Mann-Mackey received a net overpayment
of $39,506.72 and that the RRB’s right to recover that amount could
not be waived. But the hearings officer found that the penalty de-
duction of $655.00 could be removed, as Mann-Mackey’s earnings
had been reported on the wage record obtained from the SSA. Af-
ter reviewing the evidence of her earnings, the hearings officer
found that the record showed that Mann-Mackey had been fur-
nished with sufficient material to put her on notice that earnings
over a certain amount would result in a deduction from the bene-
fits payable to her. The officer further found that the information
given to Mann-Mackey clearly stated that earnings from self-em-
ployment over the annual earnings exempt amount could cause
work deductions to her spouse annuity Tier 1 component. The
officer determined that Mann-Mackey was provided with infor-
mation regarding work deductions for her last pre-retirement non-
railroad employer, and those deductions did not include earnings
for work in an elected position. The officer found that nothing in
the testimony or administrative record showed that Mann-Mackey
did not or could not understand the earnings limitation placed on
her annuity. And because she failed to exhibit a reasonable amount
of care in monitoring her earnings and the effects they would have
on her annuity, the hearings officer found that she was not without
fault. Therefore, because she could not satisfy the first condition
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 15 of 18
22-12243 Opinion of the Court 15
for waiver of the overpayment, her financial situation could not be
considered to prevent recovery, and recovery of the overpayment
could not be waived under § 10(c) of the RRA. Mann-Mackey ap-
pealed this decision, stating that she would submit additional evi-
dence, e.g., revised IRS tax returns, that would reflect that the in-
come should not have been in her personal IRS data.
On July 15, 2021, the RRB issued its decision. The RRB
noted that it had not received any amended tax returns from Mann-
Mackey. The RRB agreed with the hearings officer that (1) she was
not without fault in causing the $30,757.59 overpayment attributa-
ble to her self-employment earnings from 2010 to 2013 because she
had been informed of that reporting requirement, and (2) the $655
penalty should not be applied because she had reported the earn-
ings in question to the SSA. The RRB noted that Form RB-30 stated
that net earnings from self-employment must be reported and may
cause work deductions. Thus, the RRB found, her argument that
her earnings were business income, rather than personal income,
did not affect the finding that the earnings were due to substantial
services that she had rendered to her LLC and, thus, were subject
to the work deductions under § 203 of the Social Security Act, as
incorporated by § 2(f)(2) of the RRA. The RRB therefore found
that her failing to report significant earnings from self-employment
as a consultant deviated from the standard of care that a reasonable
person would have exercised, such that she was not without fault
in causing the 2010 to 2013 overpayment. However, the RRB re-
versed the portion of the hearing officer’s decision as to the 2005 to
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 16 of 18
16 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
2006 overpayment, 1 finding that Mann-Mackey was without fault
in causing the $8,843.13 overpayment related to her service as an
elected official in 2005 and 2006. The RRB found that recovery of
that overpayment would be contrary to the purposes of the RRA
because recovery would deprive Mann-Mackey of income and re-
sources required to meet ordinary and necessary living expenses.
Accordingly, the RRB granted waiver of recovery of the
2005 to 2006 overpayment in the amount of $8,848.13 and denied
waiver of recovery of the 2010 to 2013 overpayment in the amount
of $30,757.59. In other words, Mann-Mackey’s appeal was granted
in part and denied in part.
Mann-Mackey then petitioned this Court for review. 2
II.
We have jurisdiction to review RRB decisions pursuant to
section 8 of the RRA, codified as amended at 45 U.S.C. § 231g,
which incorporates by reference the provisions pertaining to
1A majority of the RRB supported the reversal, but the Management Member
of the RRB dissented.
2 During this appeal, the RRB filed a supplemental appendix, in which it pro-
vided an October 20, 2022, decision regarding the payment at issue. This de-
cision explained that the RRB had discovered an error in the computation of
the overpayment and that the correct calculation would have increased the
amount Mann-Mackey was liable to pay. The RRB, on its own motion, con-
sidered whether to reopen the July 15, 2021, decision, and a majority of the
RRB voted against reopening the case. Therefore, the overpayment amount
at issue is the amount provided for in the July 15, 2021, decision—$30,757.59.
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 17 of 18
22-12243 Opinion of the Court 17
judicial review set forth in section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemploy-
ment Insurance Act, codified as amended at 45 U.S.C. § 355(f).
Johnson v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 925 F.2d 1374, 1376 (11th Cir. 1991).
We will affirm the RRB if its factual findings are supported by sub-
stantial evidence and its decision is not based upon an error of law.
Id. While we are bound by the RRB’s findings of fact if they are
supported by substantial evidence, we are not bound in determin-
ing the correctness of the RRB’s legal conclusions. Id.
Here, substantial evidence supports the RRB’s findings that
Mann-Mackey was provided with sufficient information such that
she should have known she needed to report her earnings above
the annual exempt amount and that, therefore, she was not with-
out fault for the overpayment, such that a waiver of recovery was
not warranted. We find Mann-Mackey’s argument that she was
not required to report her self-employment income unavailing.
Mann-Mackey, an educated individual with a doctorate, certified
that she had reviewed Form RB-30 and Form RB-9 when she filled
out her application. And the forms provide that her self-employ-
ment income could cause deductions to the Tier 1 component of
her annuity. Further, the application for annuity benefits provided
that Mann-Mackey must immediately notify the RRB if she earned
over the annual earnings exempt amount. Therefore, these mate-
rials provided Mann-Mackey with notice as to the reporting re-
quirements. And, as she testified, she did not review the forms nor
had looked at them since 2005. See § 255.11(b). As such, we will
USCA11 Case: 22-12243 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 18 of 18
18 Opinion of the Court 22-12243
not disturb the RRB’s conclusion that Mann-Mackey was not with-
out fault.
Accordingly, we deny Mann-Mackey’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.