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

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES®

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-124310

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  639                                                                   Trade Date:  09/02/05

(To Prospectus Supplement dated July 7, 2005 &

  Prospectus dated May 13,2005)                                                                    Issue Date:   09/09/05

The Date of this Pricing SupplementSeptember 02, 2005

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)

14911QH87   4.20%         09/15/08        100%                0.644%            Semi-Annually               YES         NO                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$1,616,000.00         $1,605,592.96         ABN AMRO Inc.        03/15/06                               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes® 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® offered prior to the effective date of the change.  After the issuance of the PowerNotes® covered by this

Pricing Supplement, $943.525 mm principal amount of PowerNotes® remain available for sale

pursuant to the accompanying Prospectus Supplement.

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.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-11-00013-CV

______________________________

STEVEN MICHAEL PERRY, Appellant

V.

MARGARET FRENK, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 2

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-0343-C

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Steven Michael Perry, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss the pending 

appeal in this matter. Perry represents to this Court that the parties have reached an agreement 

regarding the substance of the appeal. In such a case, no real controversy exists, and in the 

absence of a controversy, the appeal is moot.

We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: February 22, 2011

Date Decided: February 23, 2011
From: g.warren.brooks@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:10:37 PM

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).

Nothing is free!

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,

Warren Brooks

Mckinney, TX 75069
EXHIBIT 32.2



Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer



I, Katie Fung, the chief financial officer of Peak International Limited (the Company), certify for the purposes
of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2005 (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



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



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 13, 2006 |  | /s/ Katie Fung         
|                        |  | Katie Fung             
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
From: Mary Anne Buckman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM Recommendation

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:32:02 PM

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

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Mary Anne Buckman
From: biggslittlecabins@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:53:38 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,

Linda Biggs

Sugarcreek, OH 44681
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Kenneth M. Jastrow, II, Chief Executive Officer of Temple-Inland Inc., hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Temple-Inland Inc. /s/ Kenneth M. Jastrow, IIKenneth M. Jastrow, IIMarch 9, 2005
No. 257, Misc.

#### DeBoor *v.*Indiana.

Supreme Court of Indiana. Certiorari denied.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:30:02 PM

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,

Jack Summerell

, 70785-7727
IV 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 538

Honoring Johnny Unitas and extending condolences to his family on his 

passing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2002

Mr. EHRLICH (for himself, Mr. CARDIN, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. 

GILCHREST, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. WATTS of 

Oklahoma, Mrs. NORTHUP, and Mr. COYNE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Honoring Johnny Unitas and extending condolences to his 

family on his passing.

Whereas, as a member of the Baltimore Colts, Johnny 

Unitas’ leadership and passing skills helped change the 

game of football; 

Whereas throughout his life, Unitas defined humility, grace, 

and determination; 

Whereas in 1955 Unitas played for the love of the sport of 

football, earning just $6 per game as a player in the 

Greater Pittsburgh Football League; 

Whereas Unitas led the Baltimore Colts over the New York 

Giants for the 1958 NFL championship in what came to 

be known as ‘‘The Greatest Game Ever Played’’ and 
2

•HRES 538 IH 

quarterbacked the Colts to a 2nd consecutive title in 

1959; 

Whereas Unitas threw a touchdown pass in the Colts victory 

over the Dallas Cowboys in Super Bowl V; 

Whereas when Unitas retired from the NFL in 1974, he held 

22 NFL records, including the record of 47 consecutive 

games with a touchdown pass; 

Whereas Unitas was named Player of the Year in 1959, 

1964, and 1967, and played in 10 Pro Bowls; 

Whereas Unitas completed 2,830 of 5,186 passes for 40,239 

yards and 290 touchdowns during his career; 

Whereas Unitas was elected to the Pro Football Hall of 

Fame in 1979; 

Whereas Unitas was named the ‘‘Greatest Player in the First 

50 Years of Pro Football’’, and named to the NFL’s 

75th Anniversary Team; 

Whereas throughout his career Unitas played for the love of 

the game, his city, and its fans; 

Whereas Unitas established the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm 

Educational Foundation, supported cystic fibrosis research, and with his wife Sandra, sought to assist victims 

of sexual assault and domestic violence; and 

Whereas Unitas’ compassion and sense of charity gave hope 

to those in need in Baltimore and throughout the Nation: 

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) celebrates the remarkable life of Johnny 

3 Unitas and his indelible impression on the City of 

4 Baltimore; 
3

•HRES 538 IH 

1 (2) honors him for his leadership, sportsman2 ship, and outstanding achievements on the football 

3 field; 

4 (3) recognizes his remarkable spirit and tireless 

5 work to improve the lives of those in need; and 

6 (4) extends its heartfelt condolences to the fam7 ily of Johnny Unitas on his passing.

Æ
Opinion issued February 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-12-00472-CV

JUNQI LI, Appellant

V.

HUI DU, Appellee

On Appeal from the 300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 65411

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Junqi Li, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file 

brief). Appellant’s brief was first due on October 1, 2012. After being notified 

that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not respond. See TEX. R.
2

APP. P. 42.3(b) (authorizing involuntary dismissal of appeal).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss 

any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
From: LHHRLH@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:46:54 PM

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

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
**EXHIBIT 18**

April 23, 2010 

Board of Directors

CommScope, Inc. 

1100 CommScopePlace SE 

Hickory, North Carolina 28602 

Dear Members of the Board of Directors: 

Note1 of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of CommScope, Inc. (the “Company”) included in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 describes a change in the date ofthe Company’s annual goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible asset impairment tests required under Accounting Standards Codification No. 350, *Intangibles — Goodwill and Other* (formerly Statement of Financial AccountingStandards (“SFAS”) No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*), from August 31 to October 1 for reporting units within the Broadband and Enterprise segments. As a result of this change, all reporting units of theCompany will follow the practice of an annual assessment of goodwill and the indefinite-lived intangible asset as of October 1. There are no authoritative criteria for determining which date is preferable based on the particular circumstances;however, we conclude that such a change is to an acceptable alternative which, based on your business judgment to make this change and for the stated reasons, is preferable in your circumstances. We have not conducted an audit in accordance with thestandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) of any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2009, and therefore we do not express any opinion on any financialstatements of CommScope, Inc. subsequent to that date. 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Charlotte,North Carolina
### DL 6 Baseline Cost

**Column1 EL 0: 98%**  **EL 1: 98.23% EL 2: 98.47%** **EL 3: 98.6% EL 4: 98.8%** 

**2010 Min MSP** 898.25

$ 915.74

$ 1,055.78

$ 1,145.05

$ 1,261.27

$ 

### Incremental Costs 17.49 $ 140.03

$ 89.28

$ 116.22

$ 

### 2011 Min MSP 858.35

$ 881.64

$ 986.65

$ 1,082.56

$ 1,222.38

$ 

### Incremental Costs 23.28 $ 105.02

$ 95.91

$ 139.82

$



### DL 7: 75 kVA rep unit

**Column1 EL 0: 98%**  **EL 1: 98.23% EL 2: 98.47%** **EL 3: 98.6% EL 4: 98.8%** 

**2010 Min MSP** 2,172.51

$ 2,700.19

$ 2,700.19

$ 2,700.19

$ 2,737.25

$ 

### Incremental Costs 527.68 $

-

$

-

$ 37.06

$ 

### Incremental Costs (%) 24.29% 0.00% 0.00% 1.37%



### Min Losses 536 473 408 373 319 

### Incremental Losses -63 -65 -35 -54 

### Incremental Losses (%) -11.75% -23.88% -30.41% -40.49%


### DL 8: 300 kVA rep unit

**Column1 EL 0: 98.6%**  **EL 1: 98.8% EL 2: 99.02%** **EL 3: 99.14% EL 4: 99.25%** 

**2010 Min MSP** 5,143.02

$ 5,697.07

$ 6,430.73

$ 7,595.97

$ 8,279.86

$ 

### Incremental Costs 554.05 $ 733.66

$ 1,165.24

$ 683.89

$ 

### Incremental Costs (%) 10.77% 12.88% 18.12% 9.00%



### Min Losses 1491 1275 1039 911 793 

### Incremental Losses -216 -236 -128 -118 

### Incremental Losses (%) -14.49% -30.32% -38.90% -46.81%

### EL 5: 98.93%**EL 6: 99.17% EL 7: 99.44%** 

1,303.82 $ 1,485.56

$ 2,153.43

$ 42.55 $ 181.74

$ 667.86

$ 1,263.66 $ 1,435.74

$ 2,084.11

$ 41.28 $ 172.08

$ 648.37

$



### EL 5: 98.93%**EL 6: 99.17% EL 7: 99.44%**  2,917.67 $ 3,122.20

$ 4,561.60

$ 180.42 $ 204.54

$ 1,439.40

$ 6.59% 7.01% 46.10% 284 238 148 -35 -46 -90 -47.01% -55.60% -72.39%



### EL 5: 99.32%**EL 6: 99.44% EL 7: 99.58%**  8,866.44 $ 8,866.44

$ 14,298.54

$ 586.59 $

-

$ 5,432.10

$ 7.08% 0.00% 61.27% 719 591 443 -74 -128 -148 -51.78% -60.36% -70.29%
EXHIBIT 99.1



                      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 Unitrend, Inc.  (The
Company)  on  Form  10-QSB  for  the period ending March 31, 2005, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof  (the  Report),  I,  Conrad  A.H.  Jelinger, Chief  Executive
Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C. ss. 1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

                                 /s/  Conrad A.H. Jelinger
                                 -----------------------------
                                 Conrad A.H. Jelinger
May 12, 2005
                                 Chief Executive Officer, Interim
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 President