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

| For                the Period: 1/7/2008 to                1/14/2008 |                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Coupon                                                              | Interest                           | Maturity | Callable | Survivor'sOption | Price1 | Yield2 | Moody's | S&P | CUSIP |
| 4.500%                                                              | Semi-Annual(†††) | 7/15/13 | NO | YES§ | 100.00 | 4.500% | A2 | A | 14912HHU7 |
| 4.700%                                                              | Semi-Annual(†††) | 1/15/15 | 1/15/10*** | YES§ | 100.00 | 4.700% | A2 | A | 14912HHV5 |
| 5.500%                                                              | Semi-Annual(†††) | 1/15/23 | 1/15/11*** | YES§ | 100.00 | 5.500% | A2 | A | 14912HHW3 |
| 5.550%                                                              | Monthly(†)                   | 1/15/28 | 1/15/12* | YES§ | 100.00 | 5.615% | A2 | A | 14912HHX1 |

----
From: jpduffy@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:38:12 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,

JP Duffy

Silver Spring, MD 20906
Exhibit 32.1

                             Multiband Corporation.
                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 this Annual Report Form 10-K,  Multiband  Corporation
(the  "Company")  for the period ended  December  31, 2004,  I, James L. Mandel,
Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

1.    This 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: April 15, 2005                     By: __________________________________
                                             /s/ James L. Mandel
                                             Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20465

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DIMAS MEDINA-MEJIA, also known as Dimas Medina, also known as Dimas

Otoniel Medina-Mejia, also known as Dimas Otoniel Medina Mejia, also known

as Daniel Revez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-845-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dimas Medina-Mejia

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Medina-Mejia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 17, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-20465 Document: 00511824426 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
No. 11-20465

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.

2

Case: 11-20465 Document: 00511824426 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
From: caroberts5@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:33:35 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,

Carol Roberts

Vincentown, NJ 08088
**EXHIBIT 12.3**

 

**PACCAR and Subsidiaries**

 

**COMPUTATIONOF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

**PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTINGREQUIREMENTS**

(Millions ofDollars)

 
|                                               |   | **Year ended December 31** |      |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|-----------|
|                                               |   | **2002**                   |      | **2001** |   | **2000** |   | **1999** |   | **1998** |   |
|                                               |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                                      |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                   |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| PACCAR and subsidiaries (1)                        |   | **$**                      | **162.8** |   | $ | 216.9 |   | $ | 249.2 |   | $ | 188.3 |   | $ | 165.0 |   |
| Portion of rentals deemed interest                 |   | **12.7**                   |      | 13.5 |   | 13.2 |   | 17.7 |   | 14.6 |   |
|                                               |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                |   | **$**                      | **175.5** |   | $ | 230.4 |   | $ | 262.4 |   | $ | 206.0 |   | $ | 179.6 |   |
|                                               |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| EARNINGS                                           |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income before taxes -  PACCAR and Subsidiaries (2) |   | **$**                      | **574.1** |   | $ | 255.3 |   | $ | 665.1 |   | $ | 923.2 |   | $ | 653.1 |   |
|                                               |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                                      |   | **175.5**                  |      | 230.4 |   | 262.4 |   | 206.0 |   | 179.6 |   |
|                                               |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS DEFINED                                |   | **$**                      | **749.6** |   | $ | 485.7 |   | $ | 927.5 |   | $ | 1,129.2 |   | $ | 832.7 |   |
|                                               |   |                       |      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                 |   | **4.27x**                  |      | 2.11x |   | 3.53x |   | 5.48x |   | 4.64x |   |

 

----

(1)           Exclusive of interest paid to PACCAR

 

(2)           Includes before-tax earnings ofwholly-owned subsidiaries.

 

----
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No. 333-35460

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (2)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO. 074				Trade Date: 05/03/01
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

September 8, 2000)						Issue Date: 05/08/01
The Date of this Pricing Supplement May 03, 2001
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

or	Stated				 Interest			repayment (including any

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

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

14911QDB4 5.35% 05/15/05	100%	 1.0%Monthly                         YES	 NO	

 

 

Original Issue Discount Note:					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.
- 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.
No. 467.

#### Alvado et al. *v.*General Motors Corp.,

*ante,*p. 925. Petition for rehearing denied. Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50139 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. R IC A R D O R A M IR E Z , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C R
- 126- 1 B ef ore W IE N E R , B E N AV ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e at t or neyappoi nt ed t o r epr es ent R i c ar do Ram i r ez has m ove d f orl eave t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d ersv. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . R am i rez ha s not f i l ed a response. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of th e re c o r d a n d co u n s e l’ s b r ie f d is c lo s e s n o n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G R A N T E D , co u n s e l is e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e rr e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e AP P EA L I S DI S M I S S ED . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
From: Leonard Weydert

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:08:21 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Leonard Weydert
Adams,, Minnesota
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT





Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported): May 18, 2016





CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION


(EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)





Delaware (STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION)001-11241 (COMMISSION FILE NUMBER)37-1105865 (IRS EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER)





2120 West End Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee    37203-0001 (ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)    (ZIP CODE)


Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (615) 341-1000





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:


o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))


























---






I tem 8.01 Other Events .


Exhibits are filed herewith in connection with the issuance on May 18, 2016 by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (the “Company”) of (i) $250,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its Medium-Term Notes, Series H, Floating Rate Notes due 2017 (the “Floating Rate Notes”) and (ii) $600,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its Medium-Term Notes, Series H, 1.350% Notes due 2019 (the “2019 Notes” and, together with the Floating Rate Notes, the “Notes”) pursuant to the Company’s previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-195039) (the “Registration Statement”) and the related Prospectus dated April 4, 2014, Prospectus Supplement dated April 4, 2014 and Pricing Supplements, each dated May 13, 2016, relating to the Floating Rate Notes and the 2019 Notes, respectively.





Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits .





(d) Exhibits . The following Exhibits are filed as part of this Report and as Exhibits to the Registration Statement:





ExhibitNumberDescription5.1Opinion of Sidley Austin LLP, as to the legality of the Notes.23.1Consent of Sidley Austin LLP (included as part of Exhibit 5.1).











2


---






SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





Caterpillar Financial Services CorporationBy:/s/ Leslie S. ZmuggName: Leslie S. Zmugg Title:   Secretary





Date: May 18, 2016











3


---






EXHIBIT INDEX








ExhibitNumberDescription5.1Opinion of Sidley Austin LLP, as to the legality of the Notes.23.1Consent of Sidley Austin LLP (included as part of Exhibit 5.1).











4
From: alan.hankins@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:44:22 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,

Alan Hankins

Oak Forest, IL 60452
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00327

- CV

Maxine ADAMS and Cecil Adams, Appellants

v.

Christopher PRINE

, Appellee

From the 269th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- 35653

- a Honorable Dan Hinde, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s final judgment dismissing appellants’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against appellee in his individual capacity and the trial court’s order severing the appellants’ claims against appellee into a separate cause are REVERSED. The cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. It is ORDERED that appellants recover their cost s of this appeal from appellee.

SIGNED January 11, 2017.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
No. 302.

#### Porrata y Veve *v.*Fajardo Sugar Co. et al.

*Santos P. Amadeo*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. Certiorari denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 9, 2022

No. 04-22-00584-CV

Raynelle MCCATHERN,

Appellant

v.

IVY APARTMENTS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV01871

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. We ORDER that no costs be assessed against 

appellant in relation to this appeal.

It is so ORDERED on November 9, 2022.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of November, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court