alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.  056				Trade Date: 03/08/01
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated
  September 8, 2000)						Issue Date:  03/13/01
The Date of this Pricing Supplement March 8, 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	Survivor's		applicable
                                                             regular or special
  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No
                                                                  record dates)

14911QCH2	   5.6%	03/15/06	100%	        1.0%          Monthly	      YES	    NO



Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:
____  Yes	  X   No						N/A



(1) 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 M) offer
effective date of the change.

(2) 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. 401, Misc.

#### Smith *v.*Kern Truck Sales, Inc., et al.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Mark McElroy,*Attorney General of

Ohio, *Theodore B. Saker*and *Albert A. Yannon,*Assistant Attorneys General, for the Administrator of the Bureau of Workmen’s Compensation, respondent.

Supreme Court of Ohio. Certiorari denied.
From: rmzwahlen@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:11 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,

Rene Zwahlen

Huntsville, AL 35811
n

F--

Dregon 

 Kate Brown, Covernor 

Departxalent eat Envir®nrnental Quality 

Agency Headquarters 

811 SW Sixth Avenue 

Portland, O,R 97204-1390 

(503) 229-8696 

FAX (503) 229-6124 

TTY 711 

Kate Kelly, Director 

Office of Air Waste and Toxics 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 6th Ave., Seattle, WA 98119 

Dear Ms, Kelly, 

In response to your request, I am writing to confirm that the I(lamath County Clean Air Ordinance, 

(Ordinance No. 63.06, Chapter 406), as amended on December 31, 2012, contains a continuous emission 

limitation, consistent with Federal Clean AirAct requirements and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) policy regarding excess emissions during start-up, shut-down and malfunction (or upset) 

conditions. 

Ordinance No. 63.06, section 406.150 (1)(d) prohibits emissions from solid-fuei fired appliances with an 

opacity greater than 20% for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour 

period. Emissions created during a ten (10) minute start-up period are not subject to this opacity limit. 

However, other requirements of the ordinance and state rules apply to solid-fuel fired appliances at all 

times, including during startup. Specifically, Section 406.100(3)(e) prohibits the burning of fuel wood 

that is not seasoned. Specifically, it allows for "only dry, seasoned cordwood, pressed sawdust logs, 

organic charcoal or pellets specifically manufactured for the appliance." Additionally, the ordinance and 

state rule Oregon Administrative Rule 340-262-0900 prohibit the burning of prohibited materials. In 

particular, these rules prohibit burning garbage, treated wood, plastic products, rubber products, animal 

carcasses, asphalt containing products, waste petroleum products, paint, chemicals, products containing 

toxic metals, asbestos containing materials, particleboard and paper products not used to kindle a fire at 

all times. AII of these materials would increase emissions. These fuel restrictions constitute work 

practice requirements that limit emissions during startup conditions. Ordinance No. 63.06, Chapter 406 

thus includes limits on emissions that apply during all modes of source operation and impose continuous 

emission controls on solid-fuel fired appliances consistent with the requirements of the CAA applicable 

to SIP provisions. 

Accordingly, Ordinance No. 63.06, Chapter 406 creates no exemptions for emissions during any mode of 

source operation (including startup, shutdown or malfunction/upset conditions). 

Sincerely, _ 

David Collier 

Air Quality Planning Manager 

I*
[Crim. No. 3081.

Second Appellate District, Division One.

April 7, 1938.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALFRED ARD, Appellant.

Leland E. Zeman for Appellant.

*631U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Bayard Rhone, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

YORK, P. J.

Appellant was charged with and convicted upon two counts of violation of the state Narcotic Act, both counts alleging a prior conviction of felony. Count I alleges the possession of a preparation of morphine containing more than one-fourth grain of morphine to the avoirdupois ounce; and count II charges possession of a preparation of codeine containing more than one grain of codeine to the avoirdupois ounce.

The admitted facts are that the appellant was a trained nurse and received the narcotics referred to in the information as such nurse for use in the care of a patient whom he was attending and transporting to the state of Texas; that he received said narcotics for the purpose of administering' them to said patient while en route and for treatment after their arrival in Texas. Within thirty days of their arrival in Texas, the patient died and appellant returned to California, thereafter having in his possession the narcotics which were found upon his person at the time of his arrest.

Appellant contends that by reason of the fact that the original possession of the narcotics by him was legal that he could not thereafter be charged with illegal possession thereof. As the right to the possession of the narcotics ceased upon the death of the patient for whom they had been prescribed, appellant’s act of taking them into his possession and thereafter having such narcotics with him in the state of California, thereafter keeping them in his possession, constituted an illegal possession of the drugs. He had no authority under such prescription to possess the drugs at the time of his arrest, which was some thirty days after the death of the patient for whom the prescription was issued.

Although appellant did at one time come within the exception that it is unlawful to possess narcotics “except upon the written order or prescription of a physician and surgeon”, his possession on the day of his arrest—some thirty days after the death of the patient—was not a possession upon such written order or prescription, even though he originally obtained the narcotics upon a valid prescription during the life Lime of his said patient.

*632The purported appeal from the sentence' is dismissed. The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Doran, J., and White, J., concurred.
No. 439.

#### Belcher et al. *v.*Patterson, District Director of Internal Revenue.

*Al G. Rives*and *Erie Pettus, Jr.*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Robert N. Anderson*and *Norman H. Wolfe*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1485

To amend the Poison Prevention Packaging Act to authorize the Consumer

Product Safety Commission to require child-proof caps for portable gasoline containers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 2, 2001

Mrs. CARNAHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Poison Prevention Packaging Act to authorize

the Consumer Product Safety Commission to require

child-proof caps for portable gasoline containers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This act may be cited as the ‘‘Children’s Gasoline

5 Burn Prevention Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. CHILD-PROOF CAPS FOR GASOLINE CONTAINERS.

7 Section 2(3) of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act

8 (15 U.S.C. 1471(3)) is amended—
2

S 1485 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and

2 (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(3)’’; and

4 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub5 paragraph:

6 ‘‘(B) Such term includes a portable gasoline

7 container.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19802]


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

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    Per 45 CFR Chapter XXI Sec.  2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. 
Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for September 21, 2023, at 9:00 
a.m. and will be held via online videoconference. Items of discussion 
may include buildings, infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public 
art.
    Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, 
and additional information regarding the Commission are available on 
our website: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the agenda, as well as 
any public testimony, should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, 
U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b282d2a383f2a2d2d0b282d2a652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5b6b3b4a6a1b4b3b395b6b3b4fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>; or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring 
sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact 
the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    Dated: September 1, 2023 in Washington, DC.
Susan M Raposa,
Technical Information Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2023-19802 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

d0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142046(65)

STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142046 COA: 289230 Oakland CC: 2007-087673-NF BROE REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s March 29, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.
From: Linda@latch-on.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:23:43 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,

Linda M House

Mcallen, TX 78501
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         146,113
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               216,599
<PP&E>                                       5,371,755
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,190,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,430,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          176,765
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,253,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,430,465
<SALES>                                      3,204,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,250,726
<CGS>                                        2,774,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,774,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               520,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (45,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (45,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (45,074)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.95



</TABLE>
REV HOLDINGS LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of REV Holdings LLC
            (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
            Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd
            J. Slotkin, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ Todd J.
            Slotkin
            Todd J. SlotkinChief Financial OfficerAugust 13, 2003

34
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.175



September 7, 1999




Mr. Jon Joseph
Preferred Equities Corporation
4310 Paradise Road
Las Vegas, Nevada  89109-6597


        Re:    Second Amendment to Forbearance Agreement and Amendment No.7 to
               Second Amended and Restated Consolidated Loan and Security
               Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as December 23, 1998, by and
               between Preferred Equities Corporation ("PEC") and FINOVA Capital
               Corporation ("FINOVA")


Dear Mr. Joseph:

        The purpose of this letter is to confirm certain understandings and
additional agreements that PEC and FINOVA have reached concerning the Agreement.
Terms used in this letter which are defined in the Agreement shall have the same
meaning and definition when used in this Letter.

        Notwithstanding contrary provisions that may be contained in the
Documents FINOVA has agreed to extend the Maturity Date of the Additional
Advance Note to October 1, 1999.

        The terms of the Documents, as specifically supplemented by this letter,
remain in full force and effect. All provisions of the documents, including
without limitation, the time is of the essence provisions are hereby reiterated,
and if ever waived, reinstated.

        Should the foregoing accurately reflect our agreements on the matters
set forth herein, please acknowledge your agreement to the same by signing the
enclosed copy of this letter and returning the same to the undersigned. It is
agreed that in the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the provisions
of this letter and the Agreement, this letter shall, as to the matters
specifically addressed herein, govern and control. It is acknowledged and agreed
that a default by the Borrower under this letter shall be an Event of Default.


<PAGE>   2

Mr. Jon Joseph
September 7, 1999
Page 2




                                        FINOVA Capital Corporation,
                                        a Delaware corporation


                                        By: _____________________________
                                        Its: ____________________________

The foregoing has been seen and agreed to this___day of September 1999.

Preferred Equities Corporation


By:____________________________
Its: __________________________

The undersigned, the Guarantor of the Borrower, hereby acknowledges receipt of
the foregoing and consents to the same, this___ day of September, 1999.


MEGO Financial Corp.


By:____________________________
   Its: _______________________
**CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Michael K. Farrell, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MetLife Insurance Company ofConnecticut;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: April 2, 2007      /s/ Michael K. Farrell Michael K. Farrell
# U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

**ANEWPARADIGMFOR WELFAREREFORM**

**AUGUST 2002**

Statement: A New   Paradigm for Welfare Reform The Need for Civil Rights Enforcement

Chart: Comparison and Analysis of the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill and 2002 Proposals