alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 568 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S 297 N ebraska 

### R eport
COHAN v . MEDICAL IMAGING CONSULTANTS
Cite as 297 Neb. 568



### M ary 

### C oha n a n d 

### T erry 

### C oha n 

### , i n divi

a n d as wife a n d husba n d 

### , appella n t

c ross



### - appellees 

### , v



### . M edi c al 

### I m 

### C o n sulta n ts 

### , P .C., et al 

### ., appell

a n d c ross



### - appella n ___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 25, 2017. No. S-16-145.

suppleme n tal opi n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J ames 

### T

. G leaso n 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modi

fied. Motions for rehearing overrule

Richard J. Rensch and Sean P. Rensch, of Rensch & Rensch Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.

David D. Ernst and Kellie Chesire Olson, of Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Bachman, L.L.P., for appellees Medical Imaging Consultants, P.C., and Robert M. Faulk, M.D.

William R. Settles and Kate Geyer Johnson, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellees Bellevue Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.C., et al.

H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., W right 

### , M iller



### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S K el c h 

### , J Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 11/22/2017 08:11 PM CST- 569 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S 297 N ebraska 

### R eport
COHAN v . MEDICAL IMAGING CONSULTANTS
Cite as 297 Neb. 568



### P er 

### C uriam 

### We consider the appellees’ motions for rehearing concern

ing our opinion in Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants

. 1 

### We overrule the motions, but we modify the original opinion as follows: In the section of the opinion designated “ 3. C ross



### - A ppeal

by 

### A ppellees 

### ,” we add a sentence at the end of the first paragraph, 2 

### such that the paragraph reads as follows: Appellees’ cross-appeals assign as error the admission of Dr. Naughton’s testimony. Appellees moved to strike Dr. Naughton’s testimony because they claimed that only Mary’s prognosis at the time of trial was relevant and that Nebraska did not recognize a theory of recovery based upon loss of chance. The district court, in overruling the motions to strike, found that Dr. Naughton’s opinion was relevant for the limited purpose of establishing that early discovery of cancer leads to a better prognosis. We understand the district court to have used “prognosis” to refer to the risk of recurrence and the probability of an improved outcome. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modif 

### M otio n s for reheari n g overru 

### F u n ke 

### , J., not participatin

1 Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants, ante p. 111, ___ N.W.2d ___

(2017).

2 Id. at 129-130, ___ N.W.2d at ___.
---~ I r •• r 

REF ' ID: A27197'9,( 

---l!C;:::;::o;:;+r;+E1 F~I D~E~[~1TFH1 A"l+Q~ '-, : t 

10 December 1954 

~L 86-36/50 USC 3605 

Dear Joshi 

rega.r=kl .... ¥_0_u_v_erv_ .... rch, tor you:r nice/lett.er of 2 November, 

I understand that the proposal has met with favorable 

eonsidera.tiono in good time········ it.he wheels will be started towar coming over to spend some weeks at 

Princeton and v us here. 

Thank YQU tor your kind inte.rceseion. 

With best wishes to JOU tot a Merry Christma.s and a 

Happy Mew Year, I am, 

Sincerely, 

W1LLIAM r. rRIEIIWf 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-24-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

E0~1FIDE:f1TIAQ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2016

No. 04-16-00593-CV

Alvin M. BURNS, I.M. Burns, Dimmit County, Hakim Dermish, Robert L. Ramirez and Edward 

J. Dryden,

Appellants

v.

ROSETTA RESOURCES, LTD., a/k/a Rosetta Resources, Inc., Eusebio Cantu Torres, Eusebio 

Torres, Jr., Gladiator Energy Services, LLC,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-07-11738-DCV

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 27, 2016, this court issued an order instructing appellants Edward J. Dryden 

and Roberto L. Ramirez, Jr. to respond with a reasonable explanation for failing to file their 

notice of appeal in a timely manner. The court, having considered appellants’ response, finds 

that appellants have provided an adequate explanation for filing their notice of appeal late but 

within the fifteen-day grace period. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 

615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Therefore, the appeal brought by Edward J. Dryden and Roberto L. 

Ramirez, Jr. is retained on this court’s docket.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joel F. Gemunder, President and Chief Executive Officer of Omnicare, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                    

Date: May 10, 2007



/s/ Joel F. GemunderJoel F. GemunderPresident and Chief Executive Officer


---
1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 1/1/2007 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 New Orders We t FGD 1340 3590 4160 21305 22490 21970

Dry FGD 500 1425 1145 2010 3030 3100 Total 1840 5015 5305 23315 25520 25070 Cum W FGD 1340 4930 9090 30395 52885 74855 Cum DFGD 500 1925 3070 5080 8110 11210 SCR 3000 7000



### ICA **C 2006 New Order Projections From 2006 ICAC Annual Market Survey**  0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009**M W**  

### ICA **C 2006 New Order Projections**

**From 2006 ICAC Annual Market Survey**

SCR **CONFIDENTIA L** 

**subject to protective order** historical



### 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009**M W**  

### ICA **C 2006 New Order Projections**

**From 2006 ICAC Annual Market Survey**

Dry FGD Wet FGD

historical**M W**  0 2005 2006 2007 2008 20091/1/2008 1/1/2009 1/1/2010

2007 2008 2009 2010 15000 8300 6400 3000 3000 3400 18000 11300 9800 89855 98155 104555 14210 17210 20610 10500 9500 5000



### 140,000 **Cumulative FGD New Orders**  **- Historical**  **and Projection**

**From 2006 ICA** **C An**  **nual Market**  **Survey** Cum DFGD 

### 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000**M W**  

### Cumulative **FGD New Orders -**  **Historical and Projection** 

Cum DFGD Cum W FGD



### 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000**M W**  

### From 2006 **ICA C**  **An nual**  **Market Survey**  Cum DFGD Cum W FGD

**about 60,000**  **MW of scrubbers**  **ordered by end**  **of 2005 86,000**  **MW of scrubbers**  **ordered by end**  **of 2006**
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                 INFU-TECH, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

The following are the subsidiaries of Infu-Tech, Inc. ("Infu-Tech" or the
"Company").

     A.   Infu-Tech, Inc. (a Delaware corporation).

          1)   Infu-Tech, Inc. (a New Jersey corporation) (formerly 
               Temporary Nursing Services, Inc.).

          2)   Infu-Tech of Florida, Inc. (a Florida corporation).

          3)   Infu-Tech of Illinois, Inc. (a Illinois corporation).

          4)   Infu-Tech of Massachusetts, Inc. (a Massachusetts corporation).

          5)   Infu-Tech of New York, Inc. (a New York corporation).

          6)   Infu-Tech of Tennessee, Inc. (a Tennessee corporation).

          7)   Intrx Medical, Inc. (a New Jersey corporation)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 17, 2016

NO. 03-16-00091-CV

Veronica L. Davis and James A. Davis, Appellants

v.

State Farm Lloyds Texas and Gerald Krouse, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on November 16, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellants shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 24.3
                                                                    ------------

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Wade H. Nichols III, Robert K. Kretzman,
Lawrence E. Kreider and Glenn P. Dickes or any of them, each acting alone, his
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for
him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with
the REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 (the "Form 10-K") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of
the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 8th
day of March,1999.


                                       /s/ IRWIN ENGELMAN
                                       ------------------------------
                                           IRWIN ENGELMAN
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2250 

To extend concealed carry rights to Federal judges and prosecutors. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2021 

Mr. HAWLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend concealed carry rights to Federal judges and 

prosecutors. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROMOTING CONCEALED CARRY RIGHTS FOR 

4 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. 

5 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 926B of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(g) For purposes of this section, a Federal judge, 

9 a Federal magistrate judge, or a Federal prosecutor shall 

10 be considered to be qualified law enforcement officer if the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2250 IS

1 judge, magistrate judge, or prosecutor meets the criteria 

2 described in paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (c). 

3 ‘‘(h) The Attorney General, or any United States At4 torney, may file a civil action against any State govern5 ment, State agency, or State employee to enjoin any ac6 tions or practices that impede qualified law enforcement 

7 officers from carrying a concealed firearm under sub8 section (a).’’. 

9 (b) REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.—The Attorney 

10 General shall— 

11 (1) promulgate regulations and issue guidance 

12 to implement subsection (h) of section 926B of title 

13 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) 

14 of this section; and 

15 (2) develop and implement programs for quali16 fied law enforcement officers to report when they are 

17 impeded from carrying a concealed firearm under 

18 section 926B of title 18, United States Code, and to 

19 ascertain what remedial actions the Department of 

20 Justice has taken. 

21 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

22 are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to the De23 partment of Justice to carry out this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
REF ID:A40199 

-.&. --- 11"C..- __ ,,,,__ 

H.R. 6632 

ll S HOU~ al REPRESEN'tATIVES 

1•bl'ua.x7 18, 1942 

1fr. Sumner• ot Tea• introduced the following billJ which wa1 

Ne:rrlild. to the CO'llll1ttee on the 3udio1a?7. 

!o penalise the di~ ot the contents ot oontldent.:lal Government ~ c!.ocn.enta., 

I, it em.qi;ecl by the Senate and House ot 1\epreaentativea of 

ihe lJnited Ste.tee 0£ Ameri')I. in Ccmcreea a1sembled, !bat whoevert 

'iitbout authorit7, 1ball will~ and lm~l.7 turnish, cO'DllUll1cate, «._i'YU1.ge, or P1lb11ah to aiv person, in whole or in part, copiee or the 

ftm,wu..~•, nl>.stance, purport, etteot1 .. or meaning ot 8:JtT tile, iuatru-

••\, ~e1iter, m.em.01"&l'l!m, 'book, pun.:pw.et, paper, dooument, DJ.nuscript,, 

.p, picture, plan, i-ecord, or other wr!tina in the custod1' ot the 

Vllita4 Statea, or ot ~ apn07, ottioer, or •:f:" t.he:reot, declared t~ bfJ "°"' or ccmt;identi&l bJ' .ta.tut., or 4e d to be aecret or Wfiflt!tnt.~ bl." any rule or regulation ot aq tt.part,ment or apno7 pt_ the tJniteCt ltate• ot which lie ha• lmowlec!p or wld.oh ha.a been e:wa :In the Code ot r.a-l lleaula.tiOJlll or in the J'llC!mll 

•ter, 1ball be :t1lllM. not more tEan t~,ooo or 1apr1soned for not more 

two }'9&1'11 ~both. The provi•i•fl 61 this •ction are in addition 

to, ud 4o n.ot euper•d•, other law•,"~ 

ho. :l!t The head pt arq- uacutiw department~ independent •atab-

&

UIMiit, or other apnq mq aui;hor!ze the diaolormre ot intormaticm 

di; d.eql&rec1 to be ~g;et or oonticten1i:l.al by atatute :ln the ouatod.7 of 

i department, eatablilihm.ent, or apn07 to particular persona or cla111e• c. 

6t pe:rsou or to the public pbenl'.q. 'the provisions ot aeot1on. l of thi• 

.let tha.11 nqt app1J" to cli1olosurea ao authorised..
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Wolfe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

  By:   /s/  Robert Wolfe

Robert Wolfe 

Chief Executive Officer 

Date: March 4, 2011 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Wolfe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Robert Wolfe

Robert Wolfe

Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 4, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               7
<CIK>                   0000352162
<NAME>                  NORTHEAST INSURANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>            1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        15,130,280
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      90,508
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   63,709
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              17,498,743
<CASH>                                       2,214,246
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           5,078,001
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         511,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,072,705
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             15,057,731
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          5,821,225
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,002,375
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,785,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,072,705
<PREMIUMS>                                   2,091,350
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            138,188
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              82,424
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                   1,751,152
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    838,395
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (277,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (57,453)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (220,132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (220,132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2811

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Aliance C. Giles

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: September 5, 2019

Filed: September 9, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Aliance Giles appeals after he pled guilty to a felon-in-possession charge, and

the district court1

 sentenced him to a prison term within the calculated United States

1

The Honorable Greg Kays, then Chief Judge, now United States District Judge

for the Western District of Missouri.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) range. His counsel has moved to

withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), 

challenging the use of Giles’s prior Missouri convictions for second-degree robbery

and second-degree assault as crimes of violence for the purpose of determining his

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) (noting offense level 24 applies to

unlawful possession of firearm committed subsequent to sustaining at least two felony

convictions for crimes of violence).

We conclude the district court did not err in calculating Giles’s Guidelines

range. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing

district court’s application of Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear

error); see also United States v. Ramey, 880 F.3d 447, 448-49 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding

Missouri second-degree assault conviction for recklessly causing physical injury to

another person by means of discharging a firearm was crime of violence under

Guidelines); cf. United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc)

(holding Missouri second-degree robbery conviction categorically qualifies as violent

felony under Armed Career Criminal Act); United States v. Hall, 877 F.3d 800, 806

(8th Cir. 2017) (construing definitions of violent felony under Armed Career Criminal

Act and crime of violence under Guidelines as interchangeable). In addition, having

independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),

we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to

withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
#### La Crosse Brown Harvester Company, Respondent, vs. Storey, Appellant.

*May 13*

June *19, 1902.*

*La Grosse Brown H. Go. v. Goddard, ante,*p. 610, followed.

Appeal from an order of tbe circuit court for La Crosse county: J. J. Feuit, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For tbe appellant there was a brief by *Morris & Hartwell,*and oral argument by *Thomas Morris.*

For tbe respondent there was a brief by *O. W. Gh’aves*and *E. O. Higbee,*and oral argument by *Mr. Graves.*

*615Cassoday, C. T.

Tbis is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action to recover $600 as the balance due upon the first, second, and third assessments on twenty shares of the capital stock, of $100 each, subscribed by the defendant in the plaintiff corporation, and that no part of such assessments! had been paid, except $100. The facts alleged are substantially the same as in the case of *La Crosse Brown H. Co. v. Goddard,*ante, p. 610, 91 N. W. 225, in which an opinion is filed herewith, except the amount, and as to the first assessment. Eor the reasons given in the opinion filed in that case, we think the demurrer was properly overruled.

*By the Gourt.*— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.