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): September 18, 2014





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 September 18, 2014 by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (the “Company”) of (i) $1,346,000 aggregate principal amount of its 2.550% PowerNotes® due September 15, 2021 (the “2021 Notes”) and (ii) $1,246,000 aggregate principal amount of its 3.1000% PowerNotes® due September 15, 2026 (the “2026 Notes” and, together with the 2021 Notes, 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 Supplements, each dated September 15, 2014, relating to the 2021 Notes and the 2026 Notes, respectively.





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 Leslie S. Zmugg, as to the legality of the Notes.23.1Consent of Leslie S. Zmugg (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: September 18, 2014








3


---






EXHIBIT INDEX





ExhibitNumberDescription5.1Opinion of Leslie S. Zmugg, as to the legality of the Notes.23.1Consent of Leslie S. Zmugg (included as part of Exhibit 5.1).

















4
Exhibit 10.2

 

DEED OF ASSIGNMENT

 

between

 

SCS CORPORATION LTD

 

and

 

TULLOW GUINEA LTD

 

relating to

 

Hydrocarbon Production Sharing Contract dated 22 September 2006

 

in respect of the Republic of Guinea

 

2012

 

1











 

DEED OF ASSIGNMENT

 

THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT is dated the 31st day of December 2012

 

BETWEEN:

 

(1)       SCS CORPORATION LTD., a company organized and incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands (“Assignor”);

 

(2)        TULLOW GUINEA LTD,  a company organized and existing under the laws of England and Wales (the “Assignee”).

 

NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:

 

The Assignor declares that with effect from the date of this Assignment Agreement and pursuant to the Minister of Mines and Geology of the Republic of Guinea’s authorization as evidenced by the issue of an Arrêté as referred to in Clause 6 below, it hereby assigns to the Assignee a forty per cent (40%) Participating Interest in the Hydrocarbons Production Sharing Contract for the Contract Area, offshore, Guinea, entered into on 22 September 2006 between the Republic of Guinea and SCS Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the “PSC”) as follows:

 

1.                                   The Assignor declares that, from the date hereof (the “Effective Date”), it hereby transfers, assigns and conveys a forty per cent (40%) Participating Interest in the PSC to the Assignee.

 

2.                                   The Assignee hereby accepts the assignment granted above and agrees to be bound by all obligations and covenants contained in the PSC and any modifications or additions, in writing, up to the date of this Assignment Agreement.

 

3.                                   The Assignor and the Assignee confirm that they have not received or made any payment for the assignment and that the total consideration for the assignment is in the nature of work, expenditures or fees performed, paid, incurred or reimbursed, by the Assignee with respect to the PSC.

 

4.                                   The Assignor and the Assignee confirm that the Assignee is financially and technically capable of fulfilling its duties and obligations under the PSC.

 

5.                                   The Assignee shall jointly with the other parties to the PSC be liable for all duties and obligations of the Contractor under the PSC.

 

6.                                   This Assignment Agreement is subject to and conditional upon the Minister of Mines and Geology granting prior approval to the assignment referred to in paragraph 1 above, by way of an Arrêté published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Guinea.

 

2











 

	
SCS   CORPORATION LTD
    	
 
    	
TULLOW   GUINEA LTD
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   P C Reinbolt
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Peter Sloan
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Paul   C Reinbolt
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Peter   Sloan
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Director
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Director
    


 

3
From: mdoner@proaxis.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:47:16 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,

Max Doner

Foster, OR 97345
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Signature Eyewear, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Prince, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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; 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/ Michael Prince
-------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
September 14, 2007
JUN 2 7 2016 

IE K. LINDEMAN 

CLEtRACKSVPREME COUR 

13 

CLERK 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

QIAO Q. WANG, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE 

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF LXS 2006- 

16N TRUST FUND; NATIONSTAR 

MORTGAGE, LLC; AND VERISE 

CAMPBELL, 

Respondents. 

No. 70450 

FILED 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This appeal was docketed in this court on May 24, 2016, 

without payment of the requisite filing fee. On that same day a notice was 

issued directing appellant to pay the filing fee within ten days. The notice 

further advised that failure to pay the filing fee within ten days would 

result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the 

filing fee or otherwise responded to this court's notice. Accordingly, cause 

appearing, this appeal is dismissed. 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

BY: &kW \( AWL"- 

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Qiao Q. Wang 

Akerman LLP/Las Vegas 

Fennemore Craig, P.C./Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

10).1947 ex, 2oc) )
EXHIBIT 32.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer 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 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.
Date:	August 11, 2006

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
From: helenbeaudoin@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:46:42 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,

Helen Beaudoin

Woodstock, MD 21163
From: judybarnes23@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:28:40 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,

Judy Barnes

Buhl, ID 83316
Before the Third Division,

September 19, 1962

No. 67058.

protests 61/4155, etc. (New York).

#### B. Altman & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*234Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1354 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1354

  Amending the Rules of the House of Reprsentatives to require a vote 
             each year on whether to increase Members' pay.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 2008

Mr. Barrett of South Carolina submitted the following resolution; which 
                 was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Reprsentatives to require a vote 
             each year on whether to increase Members' pay.

    Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``11. (a) During consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a 
bill making appropriations for the Department of the Treasury for any 
fiscal year, before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be 
in order to consider an amendment only proposing to bar the automatic 
annual cost-of-living pay adjustment of Members of Congress that would 
otherwise take effect in such fiscal year. Such amendment shall be 
considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendment are 
waived.
    ``(b) During consideration of a bill, conference report, or 
amendment between the two Houses making or continuing appropriations to 
the end of a fiscal year that includes appropriations for the 
Department of the Treasury for that fiscal year, it shall not be in 
order to consider such measure unless (1) the measure includes a 
provision to bar the automatic annual cost-of-living pay adjustment of 
Members of Congress that would otherwise take effect in such fiscal 
year or (2) the rule providing for its consideration allows a vote 
proposing to bar such automatic annual cost-of-living pay 
adjustment.''.
    Sec. 2.  The amendment made by this resolution shall take effect 
immediately before noon, January 3, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
No. 274, Misc.

#### Oddo *v.*New York.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Louis J. Lefkowitz,*Attorney General of New York, *Irving Galt,*Assistant Solicitor General, and *Sheldon Raab,*Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
From: jandaves@datamaxemail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:11 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,

Marty Norton

Kingman, AZ 86401
No. 64475.

#### Wm. A. Hausman Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/10083 (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material *247respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

February 14, 1962

No. 66462.

#### The May Dept. Stores Co., Inc., Kaufmann Div., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/1459, etc. (New York).

*340Opinion by

Lawrence J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.