alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2022

No. 04-22-00615-CV

Gabriel RODRIGUEZ Sr., Gabriel Rodriguez Jr., Paul Celestine,

Appellants

v.

HILLCORP ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-22-282

Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice (not participating)

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

The en banc court has considered Appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration. The 

motion is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.7.

It is so ORDERED December 29, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
No. 11-8143.

#### G. A. W. *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

NO. SEP 23 2015

mw the CooRT Of cftiWx^AL appeals ^betAcosta,Clerk

A05TlfO,T£XAS

v.

from AppCAl Mo. 10- IO~60\MCR RT°FCR'M/N4LAPPEALS

TWaV C6or-V Cas«. 4*fMrfcOOq ScP 25 2S;5

3oV\A*on CounYy ,f<2*a* Abe( Acos^ ^^

To THE UoltoRAfcUE, 3"oo&esof the cow of cr^smal appeals*.

of 5\xty (W^ ckyS 'm voKidh +6 ffit a ?<zMVi6n W" Disaeti&n«ry ftwitw •^*5vppar* «f

Th*?- P<2.-HVior><w w<x* cotflvioHd \a %\<l 4-I3TH Dis\WoV Court erf 3oY\v\5w

Coonty jTwa-s 0>f +V\«. offio^t «£ 'In&wncy "w\ Cao-se. Uo. f 4G>Oo<\i styled -Jesus (YYirala V.

The 3T-U.-H of T<uas. The pe-Miorw cippe«le<J4o-VV^ lOTH cov/*of Appeals.The- CAse uyas ftffifinei o«\ A\)(*j?V 20)0015, Appc\\afl-V-)V\tr> (ftem/ad <\\«-W-W-from Qppalla/\Vs Aff«A\ \*v./<^

^^ina-IWI-0^ PW f«^*f b«- -6\w ©n ov Wore. S^e^be^ £^,2015.^

The p^ese/i-V- r><^<3\ine -fof 6Uno\-Fn«. ?eWrior>-for D»sa«*iona*y is

S«.(7+emto«/' 9^,9015.The p^Whanefhas no4-\^u«.5^ any ex+tn-am f/i6r4o 4V\is
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-72756 On Form S-8 of Dynacq International, Inc. (the "Company") of our
report dated November 26, 2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
the Company for the year ended August 31, 2002

KenWood & Associates, P.C.
/s/ KenWood & Associates, P.C.
Sugar Land, Texas
November 22, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emilio Orlando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40635 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Emilio Orlando Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Emilio Orlando Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez 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 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.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 -- 

Early Voting:8 66 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

5,042,956 4,082,581 (81.0% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

4,051,164 (99.2% of 

returned)

31,417 (0.8% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Conducts all-mail elections statewide15

Any voter can register as permanent absentee16

EAVS Jurisdictions

39 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

5,255,466 

Registration Forms Received2*

3,068,727 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

481,684 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Washington

 Voter Registration

4.5%

10.1%

14.7%

25.1%

45.7%

In-Person

Other

Mail, Email, Fax

Online

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

0

0.0%

Mail Voters 

4,050,981

98.4%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

183

0.0%

Other Mode 

64,891

1.6%

Voters Participating By Mode5

39 39

0 0 0 0

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Hand

Count

Electronic

Poll

Books

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14 Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout 

76.1%

6
#### Virginia Sue PRICE *v.*Charles Raymond PRICE

98-368

990 S.W.2d 514

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 29, 1999

*Arnold, Arnold & Potter,*by: *Clarke D. Arnold,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Virginia Sue Price moves for a rule on the clerk and shows the court the following facts. On June 17, 1997, a divorce decree involving the appellant and her husband, Charles Raymond Price, was signed by the trial court. On August 8, 1997, Charles Raymond Price died. On June 19, 1998, the divorce decree was entered of record, and on December 11, 1998, a notice of appeal was filed by the appellant.

The notice of appeal was clearly not filed within thirty days of the final decree as required by Ark. R. App. P.—Civil 4(a). The appellant, however, cites this court to the case of *Childress v. McManus,*282 Ark. 255, 668 S.W.2d 9 (1984), for the proposition that the death of a party nullifies the validity of a subsequent divorce decree. We agree that that is the holding of the *Childress*case. In *Childress,*however, we also said: “It is not necessary to appeal from a void order because it never became effective. A void order is subject to collateral attack.” (Citing authority.) *Childress,*282 Ark. at 258, 668 S.W.2d at 11.

*373The motion for rule on the clerk is denied. The appellant’s remedy, as stated in *Childress,*is to attack the void divorce decree collaterally.
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER People of MI v Rufus Rudie Thomas Docket No. 337760 LC No. 16-005511 -01-FC Stephen L. Borrello Presiding Judge Michael J. Kelly Mark T. Boonstra

Judges The Court orders that the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED , and this Court' s opinion issued July 26, 2018 is hereby VACATED. A new opinion is attached to this order.



### tru pv . ntc r d a nd rti fi i.:d b . 

### Jc r me . ZL mm cr Jr. hi 

## r lc r k . on 

## AUG 

# 3 0 2018 Dat
Exhibit 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Alliance HealthCare Services, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                   |  |  |  |                                                  
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 5, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ PAUL S. VIVIANO                              
|                   |  |  |  | Paul S. Viviano                                  
|                   |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



---

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Alliance HealthCare Services, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                   |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 5, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ HOWARD K. AIHARA                                
|                   |  |  |  | Howard K. Aihara                                    
|                   |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### ZOOMESSENCE, INC., Appellant v. Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor

2017-1581

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 16, 2018

Steven John Hultquist, Hultquist, PLLC, Chapel Hill, NC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Mary B. Grant.

Michael Sumner Forman, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Robert J. Mc-Manus, Lore A. Unt.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Schall and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Jason TATSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30257

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

*906Ryan George Weldon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ryan Jason Tatsey, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges,

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ryan Jason Tatsey appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 88-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)®. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Tatsey’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Tatsey the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Tatsey’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Tatsey’s conviction.

Tatsey waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Tatsey’s appeal as to his sentence. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

We remand the ease to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect the correct statute of conviction for the money laundering offense: 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)®.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
ADDITIVE_TYPE ADDITIVE

ACET ACETIC ACID

ACHL ALCOHOL

ACID ACID

ACIN ACID INHIBITORS

ACRT ACID RETARDERS

BCO *

BEDS *

BIOC BIOCIDES

BRKR BREAKERS

CACL CALCIUM CHLORIDE

CLYS CLAY STABILIZERS

CO2 CARBON DIOXIDE

CRIN CORROSION INHIBITORS

DFOM DEFOAMERS

DIVA DIVERTING AGENT

EMUL EMULSIFIERS

FECL IRON CONTROL

FINS FINES SUSPENDER

FLA FLUID LOSS AGENT

FRDC FRICTION REDUCERS

GELA GELLING AGENTS

GELO OIL GELLING AGENT

GLST GEL STABILIZER

HCL HYDROCHLORIC ACID

HF HYDROFLUORIC ACID

KCL POTASSIUM CHLORIDE

MAPE MAGNESIUM PELLETS

MCA MUD CLEANUP ACID

MOTH MOTH BALL

MSA METHANE SULFONIC ACID

MSLV MUTUAL SOLVENTS

MSVL *

NECL NONEMULSIFIED IRON CONTROL HCL

NEFE NONEMULSIFIED IRON CONTROL

NEML NONEMULSIFIER

NTGN NITROGEN

NTGT *

PFCL PARRAFIN CONTROL

PHBF PH BUFFERS

PHOS PHOSPHATE

SALT SALT

SCIN SCALE INHIBITORS

SFAC SURFACTANTS

TROL TRETOLITE

U UNKNOWN

WGEL WATER BASED GEL SYSTEMS
WPLY WATER BASED POLYMERS

XLNK CROSS-LINKERS

XPL *

*not defined in the original source of data (IHS Energy, 2011, Petroleum Information Data Model (PIDM) 2

ormation Data Model (PIDM) 2.5 data management system: IHS, Inc. [Available from IHS, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.]

Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.])
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06677]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 170


Food Additives

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 170 to 199, 
revised as of April 1, 2021, in Sec.  170.30, reinstate paragraph (g) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  170.30   Eligibility for classification as generally recognized 
as safe (GRAS).

* * * * *
    (g) A food ingredient that is not GRAS or subject to a prior 
sanction requires a food additive regulation promulgated under section 
409 of the act before it may be directly or indirectly added to food.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-06677 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-D
#### Jajbir Singh PANNU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70309

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Garish Sarin, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Holly Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jajbir Singh Pannu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under -the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on, among other things, inconsistencies between Pannu’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the injuries the police inflicted on Pannu and when Pannu went to the hospital for treatment, the omission from a doctor’s letter of a traumatic injury, and the IJ’s demeanor finding. *See id.,*590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”); *see also Huang v. Holder,*744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The need for deference is particularly strong in the context of demeanor assessments.”). Pannu’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Pannu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pannu’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Pannu does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of India. *Id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Slip Op. 00-32

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________

:

SKF USA INC. and SKF GmbH; FAG :

KUGELFISCHER GEORG SCHAFER AG :

and FAG BEARINGS CORPORATION, :

:

Plaintiffs and Defendant- :

Intervenors, :

: Consol. Court No.

v. : 97-01-00054-S

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

and :

:

THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, :

:

Defendant-Intervenor and :

Plaintiff, :

:

and :

:

NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA and :

NTN KUGELLAGERFABRIK (DEUTSCHLAND) :

GmbH; SNR ROULEMENTS, :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

________________________________________:

JUDGMENT

This Court having received and reviewed the United States

Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s

(“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand, SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT __, Slip Op. 99-127

(Dec. 2, 1999) (“Remand Results”), and Commerce having complied

with the Court’s remand, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on March 1,

2000 are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further
Consol. Court No. 97-01-00054-S Page 2

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this

case is dismissed.

______________________________

NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

 SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: March 29, 2000

New York, New York
Methane white papers letter

Good afternoon,

Please see the attached letter from 65 groups supporting EPA’s work on its white papers and urging the agency 

to move forward with methane regulations for the oil and gas industry. 

Best,

Jessica

__________________________________

Jessica Ennis

Senior Legislative Representative

Earthjustice

T: 202.745.5202

C: 202.295.7619

earthjustice.org

facebook.com/earthjustice

twitter.com/earthjustice

Because the earth needs a good lawyer

Jessica Ennis <jennis@earthjustice.org>

Mon 6/16/2014 4:33 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

Cc:Moore, Bruce <Moore.Bruce@epa.gov>; Tsirigotis, Peter <Tsirigotis.Peter@epa.gov>; Gunning, Paul 

<Gunning.Paul@epa.gov>; Dunham, Sarah <Dunham.Sarah@epa.gov>; Goffman, Joseph <Goffman.Joseph@epa.gov>; 

 1 attachment

June 16 2014 Oil and Gas Methane White Paper Comments.pdf; 

Methane white papers letter - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/26/2014
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                                                           US ONCOLOGY, INC.

STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS
--------------------------------------------------------


I, Bruce D. Broussard, Chief Financial Officer of US Oncology, Inc., state and
attest that:

4.   To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered reports of
     US Oncology, Inc., and, except as corrected or supplemented in a subsequent
     covered report:

     o    no covered report contained an untrue statement of a material fact as
          of the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case of a
          report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the date on
          which it was filed); and

     o    no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary to make
          the statements in the covered report, in light of the circumstances
          under which they were made, not misleading as of the end of the period
          covered by such report (or in the case of a report on Form 8-K or
          definitive proxy materials, as of the date on which it was filed).

5.   I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the Company's audit
     committee.

6.   In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or before
     the date of this statement, is a "covered report":

     o    2001 10-K of US Oncology, Inc.;

     o    all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K and all definitive
          proxy materials of US Oncology, Inc. filed with the Commission
          subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K identified above; and

     o    any amendments to any of the foregoing.


/s/ Bruce D. Broussard                                 Date:  August 13, 2002
--------------------------------------------------
                    Bruce D. Broussard
                  Chief Financial Officer

STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS

SUBSCRIBED AND sworn to before me on this 13th day of August, 2002.

                                    /s/ Teresa M. Pruitt
                                    Notary Public

                                    My Commission Expires: September 21, 2002

(seal)