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. 333-59540

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO. 090				Trade Date: 06/21/01
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

June 1, 2001)						Issue Date: 06/26/01
The Date of this Pricing Supplement June 21, 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)

14911QDT5 5.15%	06/15/05	100%	 1.0% Semi-Annually YES	 NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		 Date		Count

$2,157,000.00	$2,135,430.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	12/15/01		30/360	
 

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.Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $[17.978]mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect. Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under a Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1,2001.
- 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NED/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AHMED ZZIZINGA MUYINGO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71763

Agency No. A070-367-287

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Ahmed Zzizinga Muyingo, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his

second motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for deferral of removal

FILED

JAN 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NED/Research 2 07-71763

under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty

v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Muyingo’s second motion to

reopen because he failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Uganda to

qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations on

motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945

(9th Cir. 2004) (critical question is whether circumstances have changed

sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim now

does).

We reject Muyingo’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing

to consider the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen. See Fernandez v.

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
From: sharcess@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:07 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,

Sharon Leitzell

Round Rock, TX 78665
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #18153 and #18154; Wyoming Disaster Number WY-00072]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-4739-DR), dated 09/11/2023. *Incident:*
                         Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         06/15/2023.
 DATES: Issued on 09/11/2023. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date*: 11/13/2023. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/11/2024.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/11/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Natrona. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18153 6 and for economic injury is 18154 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Francisco Sánchez, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2023-20496 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
No. 207, Misc.

#### Ruckle *v.*Warden, Baltimore City Jail.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1421 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1421

Solemnly commemorating the 25th anniversary of the tragic October 1983 
terrorist bombing of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, 
 Lebanon and remembering those who lost their lives and those who were 
                                injured.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2008

 Mr. Jones of North Carolina submitted the following resolution; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Solemnly commemorating the 25th anniversary of the tragic October 1983 
terrorist bombing of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, 
 Lebanon and remembering those who lost their lives and those who were 
                                injured.

Whereas on the morning of October 23, 1983, at approximately 6:20 a.m., a truck 
        packed with explosives broke security and detonated outside of the 
        United States Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon;
Whereas 241 members of the Armed Forces of the United States were killed in the 
        blast, and many more were injured;
Whereas a total of 273 members of the Armed Forces from 36 States across the 
        United States were killed while serving in Beirut, Lebanon, from 1982 to 
        1984;
Whereas the members of the Armed Forces were part of a multinational 
        peacekeeping force; and
Whereas the honor and sacrifice of the victims will never be forgotten: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives, on the 25th 
anniversary of the bombing of the United States Marine Corps barracks 
in Beirut, Lebanon--
            (1) honors and remembers the service and sacrifice of the 
        victims of the bombing; and
            (2) joins family and friends in mourning the victims who 
        lost their lives in the tragic bombing.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Material  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company"),  on Form 10-Q/A for the period  ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert Bernstein, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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.



Date:  July 2, 2004                   By:  /s/ Robert Bernstein
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                            Robert Bernstein
                                      Its:  President, Chief Executive Officer &
                                            Chief Financial Officer
From: mwetter@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:55 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 Wetter

Glendale, AZ 85308
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     161,248
<SECURITIES>                                33,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              140,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           303,167
<PP&E>                                     123,447
<DEPRECIATION>                            (119,978)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             355,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      415,153
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    20,184
<OTHER-SE>                                (410,720)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               355,479
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           458,155
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              659,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             42,808
<INCOME-TAX>                                (2,575)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         40,233
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                40,233
<EPS-BASIC>                                 .003
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR HOOVER'S, INC. FOR THE THREE AND
NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          57,303
<SECURITIES>                                       227
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                        80
<INVENTORY>                                        105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,211
<PP&E>                                           3,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,836
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,192
<SALES>                                          5,474
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,474
<CGS>                                            1,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,572)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,572)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,572)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)


</TABLE>
From: rayandJuuJune@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:07:15 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,

RAY FISCEL

Fremont, NE 68025
#### Karen Johnson, Respondent, v Advest, Inc., Defendant, and Walter Kronenberger, Defendant-Appellant. (And Third-Party Actions.)

[633 NYS2d 73]

—In an action to recover damages for the alleged conversion of a brokerage account, the defendant Walter Kronenberger appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered July 12, 1994, as (1) upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the total sum of $54,727.63, and (2) denied as moot his cross motion to file a late answer to the plaintiff’s notice to admit.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from with costs, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings.

The appellant opened a brokerage account in the plaintiff’s name. The plaintiff contends that the money put into the account was a gift from the appellant, whereas the appellant asserts that he put the money into the account to hide it from his wife from whom he was obtaining a divorce. A year later, the appellant instructed the brokerage firm to close the account. When the brokerage firm sent a check payable to the plaintiff, the appellant signed her name to the check, endorsed the check to himself, and then cashed the check.

The plaintiff then commenced this action against the appellant alleging a wrongful conversion of the brokerage account. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment alleging that it was clear that the appellant signed the plaintiff’s name on the *723check and converted the funds for his own personal use. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding that the appellant placed the money in the account for the plaintiff’s benefit. We disagree and now reverse.

We conclude that there is a triable issue of fact concerning whether the money in the account belonged to the appellant or was a gift from the appellant to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied *(see generally, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs.,*46 NY2d 1065, 1067; *Daliendo v Johnson,*147 AD2d 312, 317). We note that the court denied as moot the appellant’s cross motion for leave to serve a late answer to a notice to admit. This motion should be addressed by the Supreme Court on remittal. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.