alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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): April 2, 2015





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))











1


---






Item 8.01 Other Events .





Exhibits are filed herewith in connection with the issuance on April 2, 2015 by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (the “Company”) of $3,774,000 aggregate principal amount of its 2.300% PowerNotes® due April 15, 2022 (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 Supplement dated March 30, 2015 relating to the Notes.





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: April 2, 2015


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: bmarks@capitalsenior.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:48 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,

Elizabeth Marks

Mesquite, TX 75149
#### Metropolitan Trust Company of the City of New York, Appellant, *v.*Alice H. Truax, as Administratrix of the Estate of Chauncey S. Truax, Deceased, Respondent.

Reported below, 154 App. Div. 442.

(Argued February 24, 1913;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 10, 1913, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and granting a new trial in an action to recover upon an alleged contract of guaranty.

The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

*Lloyd Paul Stryker*for motion.

*Edward C. Sperry*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### William D. Lindsay, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City and Newtown Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 12 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIM THEMY-KOTRONAKIS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-4166 (D.C. No. 86-486-G) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. ** Defendant-Appellant Tim Themy-Kotronakis appeals fr om the district court’s revocation of probation and imposition of s ix months imprisonment. Mr. Themy-Kotronakis contends the district court’s fail ure to apprise him of the disadvantages of proceeding without full representation of counsel invalidates his waiver of such benefits and entitles him to a new r evocation hearing. Our2

jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we a ffirm. Mr. Themy-Kotronakis argues the district court fail ed to make inquiry regarding his waiver of representation by counsel. However, we review de novo whether Mr. Themy-Kotronakis waived his right to co unsel, see Brewer v. Williams , 430 U.S. 387, 397 n.4 (1977), and believe he did not. A waiver of the right to be represented by counsel must be knowing and intelligent, see Farretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975); if anything, the record here discloses Mr. Themy-Kotronakis knowingly and intelligently preserved his right to the aid of counsel at his revocation hearing. See Aplt. App. at 3-12. In response to Mr. Themy-Kotronakis’ request, the district court order ed the appointment of standby counsel, see Aplt. App. at 14, and Mr. Themy-Kotronakis was so assisted at the hearing. See Aplt. App. at 17-18; id. at 43- 61. There being no waiver of the right to counsel, the question of its validity is moot. AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001036180
<NAME>                        GFSI Holdings Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         3,124
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    37,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               79,068
<PP&E>                                         40,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                 20,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          27,401
<BONDS>                                        239,002
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          4,698
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (159,899)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,032
<SALES>                                        106,345
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,345
<CGS>                                          64,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  88,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (130)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,043
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,361
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,682
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,682
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
No. 405, Misc.

#### Weaver *v.*Sacks, Warden.

Supreme Court of Ohio. Certiorari denied.
From: anolahenke@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:12:48 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,

Anola Henke

Waterloo, IL 62298
### NUMBER 13
- 1 9
- 00 353
- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ TATIYANA GENEVA ALTE COR , A ppellant ,

v.
ALLEN MICHAEL EGAN A ND UNITED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE , A ppellees

.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 37 0 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras Appellant, Tatiyana Geneva Altecor , filed an appeal from the trial court’s denial of
her motion to allocate settlement fund s in cause number C

- 2974

- 17

- G currently pending
in the 37 0 th District Court of Hidalg o County, Texas. This cause is before the Court on2 appell ee United’s motion to dismiss the appea l , appellant’s response, and the appellate
record. Appellant’s notice of appeal seeks to appeal the trial court’s ruling on her motion
to allocate settlement funds. Upon review of the record , it appear s there is no written
orde r for this Court to consider. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by
statute. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Because there is no final judgment or order subject to appeal, the notice of appeal is premature. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1, 27.1(a)

. The Court, having considered the record , appell ee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and appellant’s response, is of the opinion tha t the motion to dismiss should be granted. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.3(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
DORI CONTRERAS C hief Justice

D elivered and file d the 14th day of November, 2019.
From: Natalie

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to preventive care and birth control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:28:46 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.

Natalie Batovsky

118 S. Main St., P.O. Box 464

Union Bridge, MD 21791
From: teachinmama@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:14 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,

Pamela Collins

Chatsworth, CA 91311
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT

In connection with the annual report of TransGlobe Energy
Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, David C. Ferguson, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
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, as amended;
      and                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                    
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.

|/s/ David Ferguson            
|------------------------------
|Name: David C. Ferguson       
|Title: Chief Financial Officer
|March 18, 2011                

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 40-F to which it
relates, is not to be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and is not to be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 40-F), except to the extent that the Registrant Specifically incorporates
it by reference.

---
#### Shelly G. Crump, Appellant, v. Peter Pitkin and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Smith, P. J..

Haight, J., not sitting.
---

EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the use of our reports dated March 9, 2009,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of TransGlobe Energy
Corporation (which report on the consolidated financial statements expressed an
unqualified opinion and includes a separate report titled Comments by
Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canada-United States of America
Reporting Differences referring to changes in accounting principles) and the
effectiveness of TransGlobe Energy Corporations internal control over financial
reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of TransGlobe Energy
Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.



|                 | /s/ "Deloitte & Touche LLP "                
|---------------- | --------------------------------------------
|March 9, 2009    | Deloitte & Touche LLP                       
|Calgary,  Canada | Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

---
From: calynne@eatel.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:32:08 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,

Calynne Millien

Prairieville, LA 70769
No. 296, Misc.

#### Campbell et al. *v.*United States.

*Melvin S. Louison, Leonard Louison*and *Lawrence F. O’Donnell*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Jerome M. Feit*for the United States.

Motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted. Case transferred to the appellate docket.