alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#            

# 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.  524                                                                   Trade Date:  01/10/05

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   01/13/05

The Date of this Pricing SupplementJanuary 10, 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)

14911QXV8  4.25%          07/15/12        100%                1.47%             Semi-Annually               YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$879,000.00            $866,078.70            ABN AMROInc.        07/15/05               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, $279.506 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.
#### Terrance Lamount JAMES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. W.A. HUSKINS, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-6976.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.

Terrance Lamount James, Appellant pro se. Sandra Moody King, Russell & King, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Lamount James appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See James v. Huskins,*No. CA-04-88 (W.D.N.C. June 13, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 522.

#### United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma et al. *v.*Lutes et al.

*Peyton Ford*for petitioners.

*Dale M. Stucky*for respondents.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the Third Division,

February 3, 1960

No. 63774.

protest 321898-K (New York).

#### Meyer Importing Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Robinson
Financial Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ending June 30,
2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Rick L. Catt, Chief Executive Officer and Jamie E. McReynolds,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of
                operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to First Robinson Financial
Corporation and will be retained by First Robinson Financial Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



BY: /s/ Rick L. Catt                             By: /s/ Jamie E. Mcreynolds
---------------------                            ---------------------------
Name: Rick L. Catt                               Name: Jamie E. McReynolds
Chief Executive Officer                          Chief Financial Officer
August 10, 2005                                  August 10, 2005



                                       29
Case No. 14,779.

#### UNITED STATES v. CHAMPION.

[Cited in U. S. v. One Hundred and Twenty-Nine Packages, Case No. 15,941. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
From: sj.sandstrom@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:47:48 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,

Shirley Sandstrom

Saint Petersburg, FL 33708
From: rachelssewing@MSN.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:54:31 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,

Rachel Dickey

Dickinson, ND 58601
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 702

[RIN 0694-AG17]

U.S. Industrial Base Surveys Pursuant to the Defense Production 
Act of 1950; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published 
in the Federal Register of March 3, 2015, regarding U.S. Industrial 
Base Surveys by adding the inadvertently omitted ADDRESSES Caption.

DATES: March 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Arvin, Bureau of Industry and 
Security Regulatory Policy Division, 202-482-2440 or 
william.arvin@bis.doc.gov.

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2015-04299, on page 11350 in the issue of 
March 3, 2015, in the first column, immediately following the DATES 
section, add the following:

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted:
     Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for this rule using its regulations.gov 
docket number: BIS-2015-0010.
     By email directly to publiccomments@bis.doc.gov. Include 
``RIN 0694-AG17'' in the subject line.
     By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau 
of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th 
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refer to 
``RIN 0694-AG17.''

    Dated: March 3, 2015.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-05324 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
```
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register,

should it be determined that publication is needed:

Applicant Pennell Photography Inc. seeks an exemption from the following rules:

14 C.F.R. §21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R 45.23(b);14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113( a) & (b);91.7 (a); 91.9(b)

(2);91.103(b);91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a);91.203(a) and (b); 91.405 (a); 91.407 (a) (1); 91.409 (a)

(2); 91.409 (a) (2) and 91.417 (a) & (b) to operate commercially a small unmanned vehicle (55lbs or less).

Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of sUASs, will enhance safety by reducing risk.

Conventional operations, using jet or piston power aircraft, operate at extremely low altitudes just feet

from the subjects being filmed and in extreme proximity to people and structures and present the risks

associated with vehicles that weigh in the neighborhood of 4,000lbs, carrying large amounts of jet A or

other fuel. Such aircraft must fly to and from the operational location. In contrast, a sUAS weighing fewer

than 55 lbs. and powered by batteries eliminates virtually all of that risk given the reduced mass and lack

of combustible fuel carried on board. The sUAS is carried to the operation site and not flown. The sUAS

will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks associated with manned

aircraft flights. The operation of small UASs, weighting less than 55 lbs., conducted in the strict conditions

outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of the exemptions requested

herein, including exempting the applicant from the requirements of Part 21 and allowing commercial

operations. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, close to the ground, and in a sterile

environment and, as a result, are far safer than conventional operations conducted with turbine

helicopters operating in close proximity to the ground and people.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, 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-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Bernstein, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)        Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated:  May 15, 2006 | /s/ Robert M. Bernstein                     |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | By:  Robert M. Bernstein                                                                                                                   |
|                           | Its:  President                                                                                                                            |

----
From: elviskingcreole@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:24:34 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,

Roxy Snell

Thousand Palms, CA 92276
From: cjohns75@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:28:59 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,

Carolyn Johnson

Vancouver, WA 98686
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1494 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 27, 2008.
Whereas on November 25, 1908, the 1st edition of The Christian Science Monitor 
        was printed in Boston's Back Bay;
Whereas just over 100 days before The Monitor's 1st edition, its founder, Mary 
        Baker Eddy, then 87 years old, told officers of her church to ``start a 
        daily newspaper at once'';
Whereas Mrs. Eddy wanted The Monitor to blaze a path of unselfish service 
        through journalism;
Whereas Mrs. Eddy, who had been the subject of inaccurate stories in the press, 
        set as The Monitor's mission ``to injure no man, but to bless all 
        mankind'';
Whereas The Monitor followed the first editor's request that the paper ``cover 
        the daily activities of the entire world'' and ``appeal to good men and 
        women everywhere who are interested in the betterment of all human 
        conditions'';
Whereas The Monitor's focus was never local or denominational;
Whereas The Monitor is distributed to readers in all 50 States in print and 
        online and has received worldwide respect for its international news 
        coverage;
Whereas Mrs. Eddy became the first American woman to launch a lasting, general 
        interest newspaper;
Whereas The Monitor has been honored with numerous major awards including seven 
        Pulitzer Prizes for excellence in journalism; and
Whereas since 1966 The Monitor has sponsored 3,600 Washington newsmaker 
        breakfasts, whose guests have included countless cabinet officers and 
        congressional leaders, four presidents, and five vice presidents: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the 100th anniversary 
of The Christian Science Monitor.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```