alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors and Shareholders 

First National Bank of Omaha

Omaha, Nebraska 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB, that First National Bank of Omaha (the “Company”) complied with the servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the First National Master Note Trust (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), and 1122(d)(4)(xiii) which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to thePlatform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based onour examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether theCompany performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selectedservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, anexamination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2017 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income and the Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Financial Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000766916
<NAME> AMOCO COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             138
<SECURITIES>                                       626
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3061
<ALLOWANCES>                                        13
<INVENTORY>                                        894
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5453
<PP&E>                                           43599
<DEPRECIATION>                                   24065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   27715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4184
<BONDS>                                           2212
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       12103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     27715
<SALES>                                          20729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 23702
<CGS>                                            15060
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    15060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2310
<INCOME-TAX>                                       636
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1674
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (409 KB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (78 KB PDF)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables (13 KB PDF)
Flows tables (143 KB PDF)
Level tables (119 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (19 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (29 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (632 KB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: March 6, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7049

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JENNIFER ADKINS THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District

Judge. (CR-94-66-4, CA-98-114-4)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 27, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jennifer Adkins Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Thomas, Nos. CR-94-66-4; CA-98-114-4

(W.D.N.C. June 24, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 12
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS (BEFORE
FIXED CHARGES) TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
DIVIDENDS
(In thousands, except ratios)
(Unaudited)
  Nine MonthsEndedSeptember 30,
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003Fixed charges
    
    $
    190,917
    
    
    $
    275,648
    
    
    $
    235,521
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939
    
    
    $
    58,924Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    15,189
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,259
    
    
    
    20,273Combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    206,106
    
    
    $
    295,904
    
    
    $
    255,777
    
    
    $
    127,165
    
    
    $
    65,198
    
    
    $
    79,197Fixed charges
    
    $
    190,917
    
    
    $
    275,648
    
    
    $
    235,521
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939
    
    
    $
    58,924Income from continuing
operations
    
    
    101,621
    
    
    
    24,713
    
    
    
    3,843
    
    
    
    17,195
    
    
    
    39,869
    
    
    
    58,666$
    292,538
    
    
    $
    300,361
    
    
    $
    239,364
    
    
    $
    124,104
    
    
    $
    84,808
    
    
    $
    117,590Ratio of income from continuing
operations (before fixed
charges) to combined fixed
charges and preferred stock
dividends
    
    
    1.42:1
    
    
    
    1.02:1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.30:1
    
    
    
    1.48:1Deficiency of income from
continuing operations (before
fixed charges) to combined fixed
charges and preferred stock
dividends
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    16,413
    
    
    $
    3,061
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

RONALD GREEN AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH FUSCO,
Petitioners

v.

PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL AND CONTRIBUTORS TO PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL AND STELLA BARBER, RN AND SYLVIA AQUINO, RN AND LORI YAKISH, RN AND KELLY A. CARR, RRT AND JAMES KEARNEY, MD AND STEVEN A. GLASSER, MD AND JOHN D. SPRANDIO, JR., MD AND BORA LIM, MD AND EUGENE M. LUGANO, MD AND ANTHONY GIORGIO AND LORI J. RHOADES, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 89 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 20th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED . The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:
(1) Where a physician provides emergency treatment at th e request of a hospital for a person who was not previously the physicia n’s patient, and does so negligently thereby causing the patient’s death, may the patient’s estate reach the jury on a claim that the hospital is vi cariously liable under a theory of ostensible agency for the negligent conduct of that physician because a reasonably prudent person in the patient’s posi tion would be justified in the belief that the care in question was b eing rendered by the hospital or its agents?[89 EAL 2014] - 2

(2) Whether this Court’s statement in footnote 8 of its ruling in Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center , 971 A.2d 1202, 1212 n.8 (Pa. 2009) -- that MCARE’s limitation on who may provide causation testimo ny in a medical professional liability action against a physician does notapply where an expert witness nurse is testifying in support of a liabil ity claim against a nurse -- permits an expert witness nurse to provide causat ion testimony solely on a claim against a nurse defendant in a suit wh ere the plaintiff has also sued the doctors alleging further injuries stemmi ng from the doctors’ additional acts of negligence?
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0340 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MATTHEW SEVERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 1 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

January 23 2023

01/23/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0340
#### Rogers, Trustee, *v.*Clark, Recr.

(No. 25271

Decided June 26, 1935.)

*Mr. W. Frank Hesson*and *Mr. B. K. DeCamp,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. L. M. Cailor*and *Mr. Herman N. George,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Jones, J., not participating.
#### WALKER v. BOARD OF COM’RS OF PORT OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 14436.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 27, 1933.

*874Richard A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Philip S. Pugh, Jr., of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

HI GOINS, Judge.

Plaintiff claims 300 weeks’ compensation for disability alleged to have resulted from injuries sustained on February 27, 1931, while working as a laborer for the defendant.

The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was employed by it and was injured while trucking cotton, the handle of the truck having struck his left shoulder, and that he was paid compensation from February 27, 1931, to October 5,1931, and averred that the plaintiff ■had recovered from his injury and was capable of returning to work, but that he refused to- do so.

There was judgment dismissing the suit, and plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff testified that he continued to suffer pain in his left shoulder after he was discharged by the doctors, and particularly when he attempted to work. He is corroborated by a lay witness, who states that plaintiff complained of experiencing pain while attempting to do some carpenter work.

Dr. Edw. S. Hatch, a bone and joint surgeon, air expert witness for the plaintiff, testified that he examined the patient twice, and ithat in his opinion plaintiff was capable of doing light work, such as sweeping lint at the cott'on warehouse.

Doctors Shirley Lyons, John T. O’Ferrall, and G. C. Anderson, who examined and treated the plaintiff for a considerable period of time, testified that he had recovered from the traumatic injury and was capable of sweeping lint on the floor of the cotton warehouse, and that this form of light exercise would be beneficial to the injured part, rather than detrimental ; having a tendency to fully strengthen the shoulder and restore it to its full normal use.

Two of the officials of the defendant testified that they had offered the plaintiff employment as a sweeper at the same rate of pay he earned as a trucker, but that he declined the offer arid refused to return to work.

 We are convinced that the plaintiff’s complaint of incapacity is due to the fact that he did not use his arm and shoulder for á considerable period of time, and that if he had undertaken the light work, which was offered to him by defendant, his arm and shoplder would have been restored to normal in a short period of time. The medical testimony' unquestionably establishes the fact that he was capable of performing this class of work. This was service of a reasonable character, and he had no right to refuse to work and thereby prolong the period during which compensation would have to be paid to him. This was the view of our learned brother below, and we agree with him.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolided
Balance Sheet and Consolidated Statements of Income found on pages 2 to 4 of 
the Company's 10Q, and is qualified in its entirely by reference to such
financial statements.     
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000768162
<NAME>                                         LANCER
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000                        
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998                                     
<CASH>                                           817
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 26,839  
<ALLOWANCES>                                     385
<INVENTORY>                                   49,310 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              77,268 
<PP&E>                                        57,971 
<DEPRECIATION>                                24,068 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               120,099  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         71,723 
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          91
<OTHER-SE>                                    48,285 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  48,376 
<SALES>                                      110,205  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             110,205  
<CGS>                                         81,628 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 97,022 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,115
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,115
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .66
        


</TABLE>
61804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–99] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–99 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 61805 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN17OC08.020</GPH> 
61806 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN17OC08.021</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 61807 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN17OC08.022</GPH> 
61808 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–24454 Filed 10–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN17OC08.023</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 61809 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–41] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–41 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–01–M 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Trenton McVel Williams, * From the 238th District

Court of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CR41145.

Vs. No. 11-13-00229-CR * August 21, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this cause to 

the trial court for further proceedings.
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00427-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. CARLOS PERLA-ALBERTO, a/k/a Carlos Arestides Perla-Alverto,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon a review of the file. To ensure that all

pre-trial phases of the case are complete before the commencement of the jury trial, it is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by Wednesday, December 7,

2011, and responses to these motions shall be filed by Friday, December 16, 2011. It

is

FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on all pending motions, if any, and final trial

preparation conference shall not be set at this time. The parties shall contact Chambers

should a hearing become necessary. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that a 3-day jury trial is set for Tuesday, December 27,

2011, at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom A-1002.
-2-

Dated: October 24, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL

CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE