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.  504                                                                   Trade Date:  11/08/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   11/12/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementNovember 08, 2004

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)

14911QWZ0  4.00%         11/15/11        100%                1.22%                 Quarterly                      YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$1,211,000.00         $1,196,225.80         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, $225.156 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.
No. 606, Misc.

#### Burks *v.*Klinger, Warden, et al.

*George Olshausen*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
From: tadzjr@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:30:25 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,

John Rogalski

Decatur, AL 35603
From: garyb@chesbromusic.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:08:25 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,

Gary Bennett

Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Motion Granted and Order filed June 6, 2022

In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00361

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.Y.C , a Child

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 02304 J

ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination case. The notice of appeal was filed May 17, 2022 . Appellant has established indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The reporter’s record was due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). On May 27, 2022, a requested extension of time to file the reporter’s record was granted to June 6, 2022 . The court reporter , Kim Wei denheft, was notified no furt her extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances.On June 6, 2022, Kim Weidenheft f iled a second request to extend time to file the reporter’s record, until June 16, 2022 . We GRANT the motion. Appeals in paren tal termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is
filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that th e appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App.
P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P . 28.4(b)(1). Accordingly, we further order Kim Weidenheft , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal on or before June 6, 2022

. If Kim Weidenheft does not timely file the record as ordered, the court will issue an order requiring her to

app ear at a hearing to show cause why the record has not been timely filed and why she sho uld not be held in contempt of court for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM

Pane l Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassa n and Wilson

.
Before the Second Division,

February 19, 1962

No. 66470.

#### Carlyle Fabrics *v.*United States,

protests 267019-K, etc. (New York).

*342Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States v. D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 251.

#### Schneider *v.*Rusk, Secretary of State.

*Milton V. Freeman, Robert E. Herzstein, Horst Kurnik*and *Charles A. Reich*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *J. F. Bishop*for respondent.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari granted.
From: jayh@gi.alaska.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:52:45 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,

Jay Helmericks

Fairbanks, AK 99712
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 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 Annual Report of Continental Resources Group, Inc., (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Joshua Bleak, President and Chief Executive 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, to 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.
 
 Date: August 12, 2011
 /s/ Joshua BleakJoshua Bleak

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
From: DavidL.Parker@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:48:57 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,

David Parker

Gadsden, AL 35903
No. 378.

#### Allison *v.*United States.

*Andrew V. Allison,*petitioner, *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *Morton Hollander*for the United States.

Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.
From: judya25@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:29:48 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,

Judy Andrews

Buffalo, NY 14228
Before the Second Division

August 8, 1966

No. P66/178. —

#### Cragstan Corp. *v.*United States, protest 60/22728 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of horns and sirens, having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Rose

River Loop Trail

Rose

R vi er Fire Road

Observation

Point

*

* Horses are only allowed on yellow-blazed fire roads and trails

Leave No Trace Preservation through education: building awareness, appreciation, and most of all, respect for our public recreation places.

Park Information recording: (540) 999-3500 

www.nps.gov/shen

National Park Service Shenandoah National Park U.S. Department of the Interior

01/12

Park Emergency Number (800) 732-0911

Big Meadows

Road and Trail Map

Dark Hollow Falls Trail – 1.4 miles round trip; very steep; 70' waterfall. 

Pets are not allowed.

Story of the Forest Trail – 1.8-mile easy circuit that passes through forest and 

connects with paved walkway. From Byrd Visitor Center exit turn right, follow 

sidewalk to trail entrance. At paved walkway turn left to return to visitor center, or to 

avoid pavement, retrace steps. Pets are not allowed.

Lewis Falls Trail – 3.3-mile circuit from amphitheater to observation point, returning 

via Appalachian Trail, or 2 miles round trip from Skyline Drive. 81’ waterfall. 

Moderate with steep, rocky areas; one stream crossing. 

Rose River Loop Trail – 4-mile circuit from Fishers Gap. Moderate, shady trail with 

stream, cascades, waterfall.

Note: Round trip hikes proceed to a destination and return by the same route. Circuit 

hikes begin and end at the same point without retracing steps.

You’ll find these trail markers

at all trailheads and intersections. 

The metal bands are stamped 

with directional and mileage 

information.

You’ll find these trail markers

at all trailheads and intersections.

The metal bands are stamped

with directional and mileage

information.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEIMY CAROLINA PINEDA-DE 

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73389 

Agency Nos. A202-126-826 

A202-126-827 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jeimy Carolina Pineda-De Rodriguez and her minor son, natives and citizens 

of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 

order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 

application for asylum, and denying Pineda-De Rodriguez’s application for 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

APR 15 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73389 

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. 

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de 

novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except 

to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing 

statutes and regulations. Id. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the petitioners 

failed to establish their proposed social group is socially distinct. See id. at 1243 

(substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner’s 

proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of societyspecific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the BIA did not err in concluding 

that the petitioners did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social 

group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to 

demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must 

‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common 

immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct 

within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 

237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, the asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 
3 16-73389 

Pineda-De Rodriguez failed to show that it is more likely than not that she will be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El 

Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.