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.  046				Trade Date: 02/15/01
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated
  September 8, 2000)						Issue Date:  02/21/01
The Date of this Pricing Supplement February 15, 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)

14911QBX8   5.625%   02/15/05	  100%	 1.0%   Semi-Annually	      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 (SM) offered prior to the
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.
From: cwcall@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:55:11 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,

C W CALLAWAY

Vallejo, CA 94591
From: ask4magnet@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:18 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,

Mary Sue Ketter

Short Hills, NJ 07078
**File A Complaint >>**

#### Consumer Advisory: Updates on FCC Consumer Complaint Data

The FCC has changed the way it publicly releases data on the consumer complaints it receives. As of January 1, 2015, consumer complaint data is available on the FCC's website on an ongoing basis through the Commission's new Consumer Complaint Center.

#### Quarterly Complaints by Year

                  - 2014                      - Year 2014 4th Qtr   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - Year 2014 3rd Qtr   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - Year 2014 2nd Qtr   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - Year 2014 1st Qtr   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects 
                  - 2013                      - **Year 2013 4th Qtr**   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - **Year 2013 3rd Qtr**   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - **Year 2013 2nd Qtr**   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - **Year 2013 1st Qtr**   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects 
                  - 2012                      - **Year 2012 4th Qtr**   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - **Year 2012 3rd Qtr**   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - **Year 2012 2nd Qtr**   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects
                    - **Year 2012 1st Qtr**   Top Consumer Issues  |  Top Complaint Subjects  |  Top Inquiry Subjects 
                  - 2011   Year 2011 4th Qtr   Year 2011 3rd Qtr   Year 2011 2nd Qtr   Year 2011 1st Qtr
                  - 2010   Year 2010 4th Qtr   Year 2010 3rd Qtr   Year 2010 2nd Qtr   Year 2010 1st Qtr
                  - 2009   Year 2009 4th Qtr   Year 2009 3rd Qtr   Year 2009 2nd Qtr   Year 2009 1st Qtr
                  - 2008   Year 2008 4th Qtr   Year 2008 3rd Qtr   Year 2008 2nd Qtr   Year 2008 1st Qtr
                  - 2007   Year 2007 4th Qtr   Year 2007 3rd Qtr   Year 2007 2nd Qtr   Year 2007 1st Qtr
                  - 2006   Year 2006 4th Qtr   Year 2006 3rd Qtr   Year 2006 2nd Qtr   Year 2006 1st Qtr
                  - 2005   Year 2005 4th Qtr   Year 2005 3rd Qtr   Year 2005 2nd Qtr   Year 2005 1st Qtr
                  - 2004   Year 2004 4th Qtr   Year 2004 3rd Qtr   Year 2004 2nd Qtr   Year 2004 1st Qtr
                  - 2003   Year 2003 4th Qtr   Year 2003 3rd Qtr   Year 2003 2nd Qtr   Year 2003 1st Qtr
                  - 2002   Year 2002 4th Qtr   Year 2002 3rd Qtr   Year 2002 2nd Qtr   Year 2002 1st Qtr

 

**Bureau/Office:**

Consumer and Governmental Affairs

**Updated:**
[Civ. No. 444.

Third Appellate District.

July 7, 1908.]

#### A. *G.*LITCH and VIOLA LITCH, Appellants, v. CHARLES A. O'CONNOR and B. S. KERNS, Respondents.

Action in Equity to Vacate and Avoid Foreclosure Decree by Default—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court—Transfer of Appeal.— The supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction of an- appeal from a judgment in an action in equity to set aside and avoid a decree of foreclosure taken by default; and where such an appeal is improperly taken to this court, it is not thereby lost, but must be transferred to the supreme court, under section 4 of article VI of the constitution.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County. K. S. Mahan, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

L. F. Eggers, for Appellants.

Park Henshaw, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

The record in this case is called to our attention by a motion to dismiss the appeal as prematurely *490taken and also as taken from a nonappealable order. The action is to set aside a default entered in a foreclosure proceeding and to have the decree of foreclosure entered therein vacated and declared null and void. The action is clearly in equity.

The appeal is taken directly to this court, whereas by the provisions of section 4, article VI of the constitution, appellate jurisdiction is given to the supreme court. The appeal, however, is not lost, but the same section of the constitution provides that the cause be transferred to the proper court.

It is, therefore, ordered that the cause be transferred to the supreme court.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1384

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance

Act to expand the definition of the term ‘‘major disaster’’ to include

an application of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that causes severe

economic hardship.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 3, 2001

Mr. SMITH of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to expand the definition of the

term ‘‘major disaster’’ to include an application of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 that causes severe economic hardship.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF MAJOR DISASTER.

4 Section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

5 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2))

6 is amended—
2

•S 1384 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘means any natural’’ and insert2 ing the following: ‘‘means—

3 ‘‘(A) any natural’’;

4 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert5 ing ‘‘; and’’; and

6 (3) by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(B) any application of the Endangered

8 Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

9 that, in the determination of the President,

10 causes economic hardship of sufficient severity

11 and magnitude to warrant major disaster as12 sistance under this Act.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001034941
<NAME>                        VESTCOM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1000
<CURRENCY>                                         US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                         2,481,788
<SECURITIES>                                     263,501
<RECEIVABLES>                                 17,603,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                     579,308
<INVENTORY>                                    3,956,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              28,780,357
<PP&E>                                        26,217,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,089,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               123,428,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         26,343,145
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,651,867
<COMMON>                                      86,782,015
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,082,931)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 123,428,356
<SALES>                                       51,298,245
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              51,298,245
<CGS>                                        (32,860,240)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (14,334,652)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (480,622)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,885,246
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,952,991
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,932,255
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .21
        

</TABLE>
#### Alice M. Barnes, Respondent, v. Harrison Gilmore, Appellant.

Judgment sustaining the demurrer to the thira and fourth counts of the answer reversed, with costs, and demurrer overruled with costs, with leave to the plaintiff to reply on payment of costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Agency CooperationChange StrategiesDisabilitiesEarly Childhood EducationEarly InterventionIndividualized Transition PlansInfantsIntegrated ServicesModelsParent ParticipationParent School RelationshipResearch and DevelopmentStaff RoleTheory Practice RelationshipToddlersTransitional Programs

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Tina Marie Cantrell, a/k/a Tina Marie Brant, a/k/a Tina Marie Hoke, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00086

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 355th District Court of Hood County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR12269 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Tina Marie Cantrell, a/k/a Tina Marie Brant, a/k/a Tina Marie Hoke, has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 10, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
From: acemondo24@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44 to All Moronic Osama-Lovin" Baby-Murdering Idiots!!!!

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:14:57 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,

Michael Paris

Monroe, NC 28110
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00727

- CV

GLORIA GARCIA v. GENESIS CRUDE OIL L. P.

On Appeal from the 229th District Court of Duval County , Texas Trial Cause No. DC

- 12

- 200

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. Ap ril 28, 2016
From: mascarr45@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:02:21 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,

Jean Scarr

Temple, TX 76502
[No. 3440.]

#### Webster et al. v. Heginbotham.

*Appeal.from Phillips District Court.*Hon. H. P. Burke, Judge.

- Messrs. Allen *&*Webster, for appellants.

Messrs. Munson *&*Munson, for appellee.

*239Decided May 13, 1912.

Rehearing granted July 3, 1912. January 13th, A. D. 1913, opinion adhered to.

On rehearing former opinion adhered to and judgment reversed.

King, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

On rehearing:

Petition for rehearing was granted because of the claim therein made that this court, upon reversal of the judgment of the trial court, should not have directed judgment for the appellant. The arguments upon rehearing were addressed to other matters — in fact to every other — than that claim. "We are confirmed in our view that in our statutory action to quiet title, which is at least *quasi in rem,*publication of summons containing accurate description of - the property, together with the name of the defendant as he was commonly known .to himself, as well as by his acquaintances and friends, as in this case, was good notice and service as to him; and that the recorded notice of suit pending by like description of property and defendant, was sufficient to charge a subsequent purchaser with notice. We adhere to the former opinion.
No. 239, Misc.

#### Roberts *v.*Boles, Warden.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*C. Donald Robertson,*Attorney General of West Virginia, and *George H. Mitchell*and *Simon M. Bailey,*Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Certiorari denied.