alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A2 08 8 . BLUE CONGLOMERATI ON, LLC v . FLEETMATI CS USA.

Aft er defau l t ju d g m en t was en t ered ag ai n s t d efen d a n t Bl u e Co n g lo m erat i o n,
LLC, it fi l ed a m o t i o n t o set as i d e t h e ju d gm en t u n d er OCGA § § 9 -1 1-6 0 (d ) (1 ), (2 ),

an d (3 ). Th e t ri al co u rt d en ied t h e m o t i o n , an d t h e d efen d an t fi l ed th i s d i rect ap p eal

. W e l ack ju ri sd ict i o n

. An ap p eal fro m th e d en ial o f a m o t i o n t o s et as i d e u nd er OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d )

m u st b e t ak en b y ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 ( a ) ( 8 ) ; s ee

MMT En t er

p r i s es

, In c. v. Cu ll a rs , 2 1 8 Ga. Ap p

. 5 5 9

, 5 6 1 (2 ) (4 6 2 SE2 d 7 7 1) (1 9 9 5 ).

Th e d efen d an t ’ s fai l u re to co m p l y w i t h t h e di s cret io n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re d ep ri v es

u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h i s ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/16/2015 July 16, 2015
No. 62194.

#### F. A. O. Schwarz *v.*United States,

protests 295806-K and 298115-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of paperweights in chief value of polystyrene similar in all material respects to those the subject of *B. Shackman & Company et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 30, C. D. 1839), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      I, Charles F. Finn, President and Chief Executive Officer and Michael C.
Anderson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of Wayne Savings
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:.

      (1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
            ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


August 13, 2004                         /s/ Charles F. Finn
Date                                    --------------------------------------
                                        Charles F. Finn, President
                                        And Chief Executive Officer


August 13, 2004                         /s/ Michael C. Anderson
Date                                    --------------------------------------
                                        Michael C. Anderson, Executive Vice
                                        President and Chief Financial Officer
November 5, 1962.

No. 533, Misc.

#### Jackson *v.*Warden, Maryland Penitentiary.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
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): April 23, 2015





Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation


(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)





001-11241


(Commission File Number)





Delaware37-1105865(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)(IRS Employer Identification Number)





2120 West End Avenue


Nashville, Tennessee 37203-0001


(Address of principal executive offices, with zip code)





(615) 341-1000


(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)








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:








 ̈Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ̈Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ̈Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ̈Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))







---




Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition.





On April 23, 2015, Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation issued a press release reporting financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.  A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated into this Item 2.02 by reference.





The information in this Current Report on Form 8-K, including Exhibit 99.1, is being furnished in accordance with the provisions of General Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K.








Item 9.01.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.





d)Exhibits:99.1Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation press release dated April 23, 2015








SIGNATURES





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, thereunto duly authorized.





Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation








Date:  April 23, 2015By:/s/ Leslie S. ZmuggLeslie S. ZmuggSecretary





2


---




EXHIBIT INDEX





Exhibit No.Description99.1Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation press release dated April 23, 2015














3
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41199 Conference Calendar

ANTHONY BONFANTI, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-02-CV-499

-------------------- December 11, 2002 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Anthony Bonfanti, Jr., Texas prisoner # 228024, was convicted by a jury in 1978 of aggravated rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, in which he alleged that he was being denied his statutory and constitutional right to release on mandatory supervision. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on this issue.No. 02-41199 -2- Bonfanti contends that he has a statutory and constitutional expectation of release on mandatory supervision; that he has such expectation that his earned and good-conduct time would be calculated to determine his release date; and that Ex parte Franks , 71 S.W.3d 327, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), ignored the intent of the relevant statute and renders that statute unconstitutionally vague. Bonfanti’s arguments are foreclosed by this court’s decision in Arnold v. Cockrell , 306 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
From: sammarsala@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:10:44 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,

Samuel and Eunice Marsala

Grand Junction, CO 81504
<PAGE>
 
                                  OPTEL, INC.



     EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                      QUARTER ENDED      QUARTER ENDED
                                       NOVEMBER 30,       NOVEMBER 30,
                                    -------------------------------------
                                          1997                1996
                                          ----                ----
                                                       
Primary:                                               
<S>                                     <C>                 <C>
   Net loss                             $(16,270)           $ (6,894)
                                        ========            ========
                                                       
   Weighted  average number of                         
     common shares outstanding             2,578               2,305
                                        ========            ========
                                                       
                                                       
Net loss per common share               $  (6.31)           $  (2.99)
                                        ========            ========
                                                       
                                                       
                                                       
Fully diluted:                                         
   Net loss                             $(16,270)           $ (6,894)
   Interest expense related to                         
      convertible notes, net of                           
      income tax expense                   4,847               3,102 
                                        --------            -------- 
                                                       
   Adjusted net loss                    $(11,423)           $ (3,792)
                                        ========            ========
                                                        
                                                       
   Weighted average number of                          
     common shares outstanding,                           
     assuming conversion of                              
     convertible notes at                                
     beginning of relevant period          4,119               3,422 
                                        ========            ========
                                                       
                                                       
Net loss per common share               $  (2.77)           $  (1.11)
                                        ========            ========
</TABLE>

                                                                              11
No. P68/461.

protest 68/5278 (New York).

#### Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of hand-operated (not battery-operated) sirens similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Oxford International Corp.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 472, Abstract 69607), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         286,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,138
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               353,250
<PP&E>                                       5,365,122
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,622,748
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,127,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          179,911
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,948,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,127,918
<SALES>                                      3,157,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,213,821
<CGS>                                        2,634,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,634,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               500,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 78,676
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             78,676
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    78,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.63
        

</TABLE>
From: sgpeterson2@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:08:57 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,

Steven Peterson

Albany, OR 97322
### Mon Aug 24 10:08:14 EDT 2015 Leavy.Jacqueline@epamail.epa.gov FW: Strengthen fuel standards for commercial trucks To: CMS.OEX@epamail.epa.gov

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Robert E. Rutkowski [mailto:r_e_rutkowski@att.net] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 10:33 AM To: Mccarthy, Gina Subject: Strengthen fuel standards for commercial trucks

Gina McCarthy, 

### Administrator USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 202-564-4700 E: mccarthy.gina@epa.gov

Re: 

### Strengthen fuel standards for commercial trucks

Dear 

### Administrator McCarthy,

The Obama administration made big news last month when it released new fuel efficiency standards aimed at the heavy duty trucks that dominate America’s highways and are used for commercial transportation of goods.

Meaningfully cutting America’s carbon emissions will be impossible if we don’t address fuel consumption by these trucks, which are among the biggest sources of carbon pollution in the country.

Industry should not get in the way of implementing these new rules and the EPA needs to do even better if it wants to seriously cut carbon and address climate change.

Today, heavy trucks are the single fastest growing source of carbon pollution in the U.S. While large trucks account for just 7 percent of all vehicles on the road, they use 25 percent of all fuel.

And while the fuel efficiency of smaller vehicles has significantly improved in recent years, truck fuel efficiency has not. That comes at a cost not only to the climate, but our economy. It’s estimated that the average household spends an extra $1,100 per year on goods and services as a result of inefficient trucks. Stronger standards could save households up to $250 a year. Those savings would also extend to truck drivers and operators themselves, with an estimated $30,000 in annual savings for the average truck, with new fuel technology paying for itself in just over a year.

The EPA’s proposed standards are a strong and important step to addressing this problem. But according to experts, the EPA is aiming too low and stands to make these standards even stronger. While the EPA’s proposed rule aims to cut fuel consumption by 36 percent by the year 2027, it’s been estimated that proven, tested, and readily available technologies would allow for a 40 percent cut in consumption two years earlier.And when it comes to the devastating impact of climate change from carbon emissions, every year counts.

Sure these new rules don’t just take effect, but do so with the strongest standards possible. S et a standard that achieves a 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption by 2025.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring these remarks to your attention.

Yours sincerely, Robert E. Rutkowski

cc: House Minority Leadership

2527 Faxon Court Topeka, Kansas 66605-2086 P/F: 1 785 379-9671 E-mail: r_e_rutkowski@att.net
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00325-CR

Pedro Dominguez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1219605D)

May 30, 2013

Opinion by Justice Meier

Concurrence by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Bill Meier
OKLAHOMA 

Area Designations for the 

2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The table below identifies the areas and associated counties or parts of counties in Oklahoma that EPA 

intends to designate as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (2008 

NAAQS). In accordance with section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA must designate an area 

“nonattainment” if it is violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in a nearby area. The technical analyses supporting the boundaries for the 

individual nonattainment areas are provided below. 

Intended Nonattainment Areas in Oklahoma

Area 

Oklahoma’s Recommended 

Nonattainment Counties 

EPA’s Intended 

Nonattainment Counties 

None None None 

Governor Henry submitted an ozone designation recommendation letter to Acting Regional 

Administrator Starfield on March 9, 2009, recommending no counties be designated nonattainment for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on data for the period from 2006 – 2008. An updated recommendation 

letter, based on monitoring data from 2008 – 2010, was submitted to Regional Administrator 

Armendariz by Governor Fallin on October 11, 2011. This letter recommended that all counties in 

Oklahoma be designated as “attainment” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA also received an ozone designation recommendation letter from Cherokee Nation Environmental 

Programs Administrator Tom Elkins on February 13, 2009. Administrator Elkins did not make a 

recommendation, but instead reported that the Cherokee Nation is in attainment with the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA intends to designate all counties and tribal territories in Oklahoma as “unclassifiable/attainment” 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. There are no ambient air quality monitors within the state of Oklahoma 

with design values that indicate a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and there are no nonattainment 

areas or intended nonattainment areas that border the state of Oklahoma. The nearest nonattainment 

areas are Dallas-Fort Worth in Texas and Denver in Colorado.
Before the First Division,

January 26, 1956

No. 59682.

#### Lentheric, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 141046-K (New York).

*330Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.