alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Vail Banks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Raymond E. Verlinde, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
(principal financial and accounting 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 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/ Raymond E. Verlinde                                           
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|Raymond E. Verlinde                                               
|Senior
  Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
|October 25, 2004
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  527                                                                   Trade Date:  01/18/05

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   01/21/05

The Date of this Pricing SupplementJanuary 18, 2005

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

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

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

14911QXY2  4.30%         07/15/12        100%                1.40%                 Monthly                       YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$2,483,000.00         $2,448,238.00         ABN AMRO Inc.        02/15/05               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) 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 (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $284.365 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

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.
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.  216				Trade Date: 08/29/02
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

  June 1, 2001)							Issue Date:  09/04/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement August 29, 2002
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)

14911QJZ5    4.35%	09/15/08	     100%	        1.1%                Semi-Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$3,843,000.00	$3,800,727.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	   03/15/03		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, $698.095 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.
Additionally, the total principal amount of PowerNotes(SM) offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001 has been increased from $500.0mm to $750.0mm.  $250.0mm principal amount of debt securities registered pursuant to Registration Statement No. 333-59540 originally offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement dated June 15, 2001 and related Prospectus dated May 25, 2001 are being offered as PowerNotes(SM) by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its 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.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10937

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Daniel Salgado, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:23-CR-82-1

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Daniel Salgado appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry 

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). Salgado argues 

that treating a prior felony conviction that increases the statutory maximum 

under § 1326(b) as a sentencing factor, rather than a separate element of the 

offense, violates the Constitution. While Salgado’s 12-month term of 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10937 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024
No. 23-10937

2

imprisonment is within the otherwise applicable statutory maximum in 

§ 1326(a), he complains that his three-year term of supervised release 

exceeds the one-year statutory maximum that applies without a § 1326(b) 

enhancement. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(b). However, Salgado 

concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United 

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and merely raises this issue to preserve it for 

further review. The Government therefore has filed an unopposed motion

for summary affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a 

brief.

Because Salgado is correct that his argument is foreclosed, see United 

States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019), summary affirmance is 

appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 

1969). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 

the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-10937 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2024
From: Georgia Libbares

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: contraception rights

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:46:41 AM

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.

Georgia Libbares
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       7,602,320
<SECURITIES>                                27,250,798
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,960,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,583,352
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,767,109
<PP&E>                                     138,431,296
<DEPRECIATION>                            (48,771,675)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             454,659,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,187,484
<BONDS>                                    269,221,068
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      186,623,329
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<COMMON>                                       473,152
<OTHER-SE>                                (52,828,834)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               454,659,825
<SALES>                                     27,537,598
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,537,598
<CGS>                                        7,497,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,497,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,007,626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,088,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,678,367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (463,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,215,367)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (3,118,439)<F1>
<CHANGES>                                    (712,629)<F2>
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,046,436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (32.72)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NET OF INCOME TAX BENEFIT.
<F2>NET OF INCOME TAX BENEFIT.
<F3>BASIC NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS PER COMMON SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
From: iglesiadelcamino@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:10 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,

Humberto Porras

Odessa, TX 79763
BATTLE, FOWLER, JAFFIN & KHEEL
                                 280 PARK AVENUE
                            NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
                                 (212) 949-8300


                                  May 13, 1985



Connecticut Daily Tax Free Income Fund, Inc.
100 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017

Gentlemen:

                  We have acted as counsel to Connecticut  Daily Tax Free Income
Fund,  Inc.,  a Maryland  corporation  (the  "Fund"'),  in  connection  with the
preparation  and filing of  Registration  Statement No. 2-96546 on Form N-lA and
all amendments thereto (the "Registration  Statement") covering shares of Common
Stock, par value $.001 per share, of the Fund.

                  We have examined copies of the Articles of  Incorporation  and
By-Laws  of the Fund,  the  Registration  Statement,  and such  other  corporate
records,  proceedings  and  documents,  including  the  consent  of the Board of
Directors  and the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Fund,
as we have  deemed  necessary  for the  purpose  of this  opinion.  We have also
examined such other  documents,  papers,  statutes and  authorities as we deemed
necessary  to  form a  basis  for  the  opinion  hereinafter  expressed.  In our
examination of such material,  we have assumed the genuineness of all signatures
and the  conformity to original  documents of all copies  submitted to us. As to
various  questions  of fact  material  to such  opinion,  we  have  relied  upon
statements  and  certificates  of officers and  representatives  of the Fund and
others.

                  Based  upon  the  foregoing,  we are of the  opinion  that the
shares of Common Stock,  par value $.001 per share, of the Fund, to be issued in
accordance  with the terms of the offering,  as set forth in the  Prospectus and
Statement  of  Additional  Information  included  as  part  of the  Registration
Statement,  and in accordance with  applicable  state  securities  laws, when so
issued and paid for,  will  constitute  validly  authorized  and legally  issued
shares of Common Stock, fully paid and non-assessable.


<PAGE>



                  We hereby  consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit
to the  Registration  Statement and to the  reference to us in the  Registration
Statement under the heading  "Federal Income Taxes" in the Prospectus and in the
Statement  of  Additional  Information,  and  under  the  heading  "Counsel  and
Auditors" in the Statement of Additional Information.

                                                  Very truly yours,

                                      
                                                  Battle, Fowler, Jaffin & Kheel
EXHIBIT 21


                         LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

     The Partnership is a partner of the following joint ventures:  Maguire
Thomas Partners-South Tower, a limited liability company, which holds title
to Wells Fargo Center-IBM Tower located in Los Angeles, California.
Reference is made to the Notes for a description of the terms of such joint
venture partnerships.  The Partnership is a 50% shareholder in Carlyle
Managers, Inc., the general Partner of JMB/NYC Office Building Associates,
L.P. ("JMB/NYC"), an Illinois limited partnership, which (through 237/1290
Upper Tier Associates, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership), had (i)
(prior to its sale in March 2001) an indirect limited partnership interest
in 1290 Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, which owns 1290
Avenue of the Americas in New York, New York, and (ii) (prior to its sale
in January 2002) an indirect interest in 237 Park Partners, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company, which owns 237 Park Avenue in New York,
New York.  The partners in the JMB/NYC Office Building Associates, L.P. are
affiliates of the General Partners of the Partnership.  The Partnership is
a 50% shareholder in Carlyle Investors, Inc., which is the general partner
of Carlyle-XIV Associates, L.P., an Illinois limited partnership.  The
Partnership is a 99% limited partner in Carlyle-XIV Associates, L.P., which
holds an approximate 25% limited partnership interest in JMB/NYC.
Reference is made to the Notes for a description of the terms of such joint
venture partnerships.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2320

In re: JESSE UPCHURCH,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition transferred by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Upchurch, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM

Jesse Upchurch has filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus 

challenging his North Carolina convictions for driving while intoxicated and assault on a 

law enforcement officer and seeking immediate release. We ordinarily decline to 

entertain original habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case provides 

no reason to depart from the general rule. Accordingly, in the interests of justice we 

transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North 

Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b); Fed. R. App. P. 22(a). We deny Upchurch’s motion 

for bail without prejudice and defer the disposition of Upchurch’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis to the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION TRANSFERRED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001036148
<NAME> CYBERTEL, COMMUNICATIONS CORP.

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1831763
<SECURITIES>                                   4736250
<RECEIVABLES>                                   256761
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6987334
<PP&E>                                          492321
<DEPRECIATION>                                  237977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7737424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           382838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                          5775
<OTHER-SE>                                     7296131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7737424
<SALES>                                         496191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                496191
<CGS>                                           253907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   253907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2271806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              609193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2638714)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2638714)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1407536
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.50)


</TABLE>
No. 301.

#### Weigel *v.*Partenweederei et al.

*Clifford D. O’Brien*for petitioner.

*Erskine B. Wood*and *Alfred A. Hampson*for respondents.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.