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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1626

TODD M. JACK, MS, PhD, Trustee,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

PRESIDENT CUTLER DAWSON,

Defendant – Appellee.

No. 09-1721

TODD M. JACK, MS, PhD, Trustee,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

PRESIDENT CUTLER DAWSON,

Defendant – Appellee.

No. 09-1757

TODD M. JACK, MS, PhD, Trustee,

Plaintiff – Appellant,v.

CUTLER DAWSON, President, Navy Federal Credit Union,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00031-gec; 5:09-cv-00038-gec; 5:09-cv-00044-gec)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009

Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM:

Todd M. Jack appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing these actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

(ii) (2006) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Jack v. Dawson , Nos.

5:09-cv-00031-gec, 5:09-cv-00038-gec, and 5:09-cv-00044-gec

(W.D. Va. filed May 20, entered May 21, 2009; June 11, 2009;

filed June 22, entered June 23, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, John M. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer ofAmerican Residential Investment Trust, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do herebycertify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, basedon my knowledge:

 

(1) the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as anexhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated: May 14, 2003 | /s/  John M. Robbins |   |
|---------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                | John M. Robbins           |
|                | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to American Residential InvestmentTrust, Inc. and will be retained by American Residential Investment Trust, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  326                                                                   Trade Date: 8/18/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8,2002)                                                                                Issue Date:  8/21/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementAugust  18, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QPP0     5.00%       08/15/12           100%               1.2%                  Semi-Annually            YES            YES             Callable at 100% beginning 08/15/05

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       and semi-annually thereafter.                 

                          

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$4,727,000.00         $4,670,276.00         ABN AMRO Inc.        02/15/04                               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $234.951 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19717]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. FHWA-2023-0003]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments 
for a New Information Collection; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is withdrawing the notice, ``Agency Information 
Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information 
Collection,'' published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janelle Hinton, (202) 366 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#40717670746f2a212e252c2c256e28292e342f2e00242f346e272f36">1604/<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf1faf5fef7f7feb5f3f2f5eff4f5dbfff4efb5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>; Martha Kenley, (202) <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#526462667f646b656b7d3f3320263a337c39373c3e372b12363d267c353d24">604-6979/<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f994988b8d9198d7929c97959c80b99d968dd79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration, Office of Civil Rights, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA is withdrawing the notice published 
in the Federal Register on February 8, 2023 at 88 FR 8339 (FR Number 
2023-02640).

    Issued on: September 7, 2023.
Jazmyne Lewis,
Information Collection Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-19717 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: Elizabeth Black

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:18:06 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Black

900-8th St NW

Albuquerque, NM 87102
From: Wll650@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:12 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

William Newport

Olive Branch, MS 38654
From: twstar54@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support for Women"s Health

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:42:17 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access

to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I am particularly interested in this matter because I work as a volunteer CASA and see what the

lack of appropriate health care and contraceptive services creates for young poor women. I urge

you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 12.2

                                     NSTAR
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                   and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements
                      Twelve Months Ended March 31, 2000
                                (in thousands)

Net income from continuing operations                $164,000

Income taxes                                           73,430

Fixed charges                                         169,831
                                                     --------
   Total                                             $407,261
                                                     ========

Interest expense                                     $152,831
Interest component of rentals                          17,000
                                                     --------

   Subtotal                                           169,831
                                                     --------

Preferred stock dividend requirements                   8,629
                                                     --------

   Total                                             $178,460
                                                     ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
preferred stock dividend requirements                    2.28
                                                     ========
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1458 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1458

  To facilitate the voluntary provision of emergency services during 
                        commercial air flights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2001

 Mr. Feingold introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To facilitate the voluntary provision of emergency services during 
                        commercial air flights.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Volunteers for Safe Skies Act''.

SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING COMMERCIAL AIR 
              FLIGHTS.

    (a) Program.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall carry out a program to permit qualified law 
enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians 
to provide emergency services on commercial air flights during 
emergencies.
    (b) Requirements.--The Administrator shall establish such 
requirements for administration of the program, including 
qualifications for law enforcement officers, firefighters, and 
emergency medical technicians, as the Administrator considers 
appropriate.
    (c) Confidentiality of Registry.--If as part of the program under 
subsection (a) the Administrator requires or permits registration of 
law enforcement officers, firefighters, or emergency medical 
technicians who are willing to provide emergency services on commercial 
flights during emergencies, the Administrator shall take appropriate 
actions to ensure that the registry is available only to appropriate 
airline personnel and otherwise remains confidential.
    (d) Consultation.--The Administrator shall consult with appropriate 
representatives of the commercial airline industry, and organizations 
representing community-based law enforcement, firefighters, and 
emergency medical technicians, in carrying out the program under 
subsection (a), including the actions taken under subsection (c).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10k-3



     Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of Ameritech Corporation
      on May 10, 1998 amending the Ameritech 1989 Long Term Incentive Plan


                  FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Company's 1989 Long Term Incentive
Plan be, and it hereby is, amended by (i) deleting clause (iii) of the third
subparagraph of paragraph I-9 in its entirety and replacing it with the
following: "(iii) Reserved"; (ii) deleting the last sentence of paragraph III-3
in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "Payment of the Company's
obligations arising out of the exercise of a Stock Appreciation Right shall be
made in shares of Common Stock (valued at its Fair Market Value at the date of
exercise)"; and (iii) deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph of
subparagraph I-9(v) in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "In the
event that a Participant's employment is involuntarily terminated without cause
during any Performance Period in effect on the date of the Change in Control, an
immediate distribution of the Participant's Performance Award (as determined in
this paragraph I-9) shall be made to the Participant in the form of shares of
Common Stock."
SERVED JANUARY 11,2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP009GL0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0971 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before April 15, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely 

manner... 

DEPI OF^iJAKSPpRIATlON 

iwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09GL0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Charles R. Bamett, III, Respondent's Counsel 

1664 Moorland Lane 

Crystal Lake, IL 60014-2985 

TEL: 815-356-8647 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Briana Morgan, Complainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Groimd Floor 

RoomE12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7577

DONALD HERRINGTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 00412

- AJT

- MSN )

Submitted : July 29, 2021 Decided: August 20, 2021

Before KING, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Donald Herrington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald Herrington seeks to appeal the district court’s order after remand dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook , 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2 015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate one claim alleged in Herrington’s § 2254 petition and that the unadjudicated claim was included in the claims that we previously remanded t o the district court

. Id. at 696

- 97. Specifically, the court did not address Herrington’s claim that his state appellate counsel performed deficiently by failing to argue that Herrington was denied an impartial jury when the jury was informed of the sent ence range for some of the offenses during the guilt phase of trial

. We thus conclude that t he order Herrington seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order . Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim

. *
Id. at 699; cf. Hixso n v. Moran , 1 F.4th 297, 301

- 02 (4th Cir. 2021) (ruling that Porter did

* We acknowledge that, after the prior remand, the district court performed an exhaustive review of the state court record and issued a 47

- page opinion explaining its reasoning for dismissing Herrington’s § 2254 petition . Our disposition of this appeal is in no way a criticism of the district court’s painstaking efforts in these proceedings.3 not require remand for further consideration of two

- component claim where district court acknowledged and resolved both components ). We also grant Herrington’s motion to amend his info rmal brief

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED