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

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  365                                                               Trade Date:  11/24/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                     Issue Date:   11/28/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementNovember 24, 2003

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)

14911QRE3   4.05%                        05/15/11          100%                    1.125%              Quarterly           YES            NO                

 

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$1,245,000.00                $1,230,993.75         ABN AMROInc.                 02/15/04                 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, $360.264 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

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.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 154 

Recognizing Stax Records for enriching the Nation’s Cultural life with ‘‘50 

years of soul’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2007 

Mr. COHEN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing Stax Records for enriching the Nation’s Cultural 

life with ‘‘50 years of soul’’. 

Whereas Stax Records of Memphis, Tennessee, is an icon of 

the American recording industry; 

Whereas Stax Records produced some of the earliest recordings by such soul music legends as Isaac Hayes, Otis 

Redding, the Staple Singers, Wilson Pickett, Luther 

Ingram, Albert King, the Bar-Kays, Booker T. and the 

M.G.’s, Johnnie Taylor, Rufus, and Carla Thomas, and 

many other artists whose work continues to exert a profound influence on popular music today; 

Whereas Stax Records also produced important recordings 

by, among others, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Bill 

Cosby, and Richard Pryor; 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 154 IH 

Whereas soul music is a uniquely American art form that 

continues to enrich the Nation’s cultural life; and 

Whereas, in 2007, the Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureau, Concord Music Group/Stax Records, and the 

Soulsville Foundation will be celebrating both American 

soul music and the 50th anniversary of the founding of 

Stax Records through their ‘‘50 Years of Soul’’ celebration: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 50th anniversary of the 

3 founding of Stax Records; 

4 (2) recognizes the important role played by 

5 Stax Records in launching the careers of many leg6 endary soul music artists; and 

7 (3) recognizes the continuing contributions and 

8 influence of soul music to America’s cultural life. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 12, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00017

- CR

John Ray THATCHER, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Te xas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR0442 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, appellant John Ray Thatcher pled nolo contendere to the offense of evading arrest. As part of his plea agreement, appellant signed a separate “Waiver of Appeal.” The trial court imposed sentence and si gned a certificate stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). This court gave appellant notice that the appeal would be dismisse d unless an amended trial court certification showing he has the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See id. R. 25.2(d), id. R. 37.1; see also

Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits , No.

04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a written response stating he reviewed the record

and could find no right of appeal. A fter reviewing the record and counsel’s notice, we rendered an opinion and judgment on February 13, 2019, dismiss ing the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d).

Despite appointed counsel’s prior response, on February 12, 2019, he filed an Anders

brief and a motion to withdraw. Howev er, as counsel agreed in his response to our order, appellant has no right to appeal. See id. R. 25.2 (a)(2). Accordingly, we ORDER STRICKEN

the Anders brief filed by counsel in this court on February 12, 2019, and DENY AS MOOT the

motion to withdraw file d that same date.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and all counsel._________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of March, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JODI C. PIERCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-35788

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00105-RFC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Richard F. Cebull, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 3, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Before: FISHER, GOULD and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Jodi C. Pierce appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, upholding the

denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and

reverse and remand in part.

FILED

MAR 21 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. The ALJ articulated germane reasons for giving little weight to the

opinion of Pierce’s counselor, Timothy Dove. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d

1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ adopted the opinion of the medical expert

because she was the only acceptable medical source who reviewed Pierce’s entire

medical record. The ALJ permissibly rejected Dove’s opinion because it was

inconsistent with Dove’s treatment notes and care plan and because its extreme

characterization of Pierce’s limitations was not supported by the medical record. 

See id. at 1112; Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir.

2010). Pierce’s inability to afford alternative mental health treatment does not

invalidate this conclusion.

2. The ALJ did not give sufficiently specific, clear and convincing

reasons for discrediting Pierce’s testimony regarding the number of days she is

debilitated by depression or a manic episode. See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466

F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). Her testimony that she is debilitated several days

per month would, if credited, establish that she is disabled. The ALJ apparently

rejected this testimony because it was not supported by the medical record, but an

ALJ may not disregard a claimant’s testimony on this basis when the testimony

concerns the severity of symptoms that her underlying impairment could

reasonably be expected to cause. See id. at 883-84. The other reasons the ALJ

2
offered also were not sufficiently specific to Pierce’s testimony regarding the

severity of this symptom. See Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591-92 (9th Cir.

2009). We decline to apply the “credit-as-true” rule in this case and reverse and

remand with instructions to remand to the agency for further determinations on an

open record regarding how often Pierce is debilitated by depression or a manic

episode. See Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 2003). The ALJ

may take more evidence if it would be useful, but is not required to do so.

3. The remainder of the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination is

affirmed.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

3
**Questions to ASTSWMO for Clarification of States’ Policies Re: CBI and Manifests October, 2008** 
QUESTION 1: Do states that now collect manifests make individual manifests available at public request , or are there restrictions on access? How long after h azardous waste shipments are completed does it ty picall y take the state to make such manifests available to requestors?
QUESTION 2: Do states that now collect manifests make aggregate d data from manifests , multiple manifests, or data reports freely avail abl e to the public upon request ? (Examples would be a request for all manifests with a particular waste code or all manifests going to or managed b y a particular company or facility .) Have states imposed any CBIrelated limitation s on the information they will disclose in response to such requests? How long after hazardous waste shipments are completed does it ty picall y take the state t o provide aggregate data in response to such a request ?

QUESTION 3: In a survey conducted for ASTSWMO by L iz Bols (MI DEQ) in January , 2007, nine States provided responses to questions related to manifests and a future electronic manifest sy stem. The States that responded were NY, OR, SC, FL , MI, WA, CT, ID, and OH. Of these nine states, eight states responded that manifest data would probabl y not be subject to CBI under state laws and policies, while Ohio indicated that manifest data might be subject to CBI claims based on the experience in Ohio with Ohio’s Hazardous Waste Annual Report. In addition, several state s on the e

- Manifest rule workgroup, including MD, PA, NJ, and CA, stated that they would also release their HW manifests as public information without allowing CBI claims.

However, i n August, 2004, Paula Canter of the Ohio EPA polled the States on their S ite ID , manifest tracking, and Hazardous Waste Reporting requirements. As part of the 2004 survey , 44 States responded to the question “Do you allow CBI claims on the Hazardous Waste Report?” The responses to this question in 2004 from the 44 respondents was evenl y split between states that would allowed and states that would not allow CBI claims for their HW Report data.
Given that the request for aggregate manifest data may be viewed as presenting many of the same data and issues as requests for a st ate’s HW Report data insofar as the disclosure of customer list information, how should we reconcile the answers given in response to the 2004 and 2007 surveys? Should aggregate manifest requests and requests for HW Annual Report data be treated different ly for purposes of CBI claims?

QUESTION 4 : Do you think that your state ’ s current policy on public disclosure of information of the ty

pe described in Question 2 would be at all affected b y the fact that an electronic manifest s ystem may make information available more rapidly than it is available under the current paper s ys tem?
From: lkovac@ocsd.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:19:09 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,

L. Kovac

La Habra, CA 90631
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Flurida Group, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Flurida Group, Inc.Dated: March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Jianfeng DingJianfeng DingChief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Flurida Group, Inc. and will be retained by Flurida Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: csolenberger@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:11:43 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,

Craig Solenberger

Rocklin, CA 95765
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,**

**AS AMENDED**

I,Dr. Avishay S. Katz, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of GigOptix, Inc. (the“registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting for the registrant and have: 

*a) *Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

*b)*Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controls overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposed in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles. 

*c)*Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

*d)* Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

*a)*Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

*b) A*ny fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2009
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, DC 20549


                                   FORM 8-K


                                CURRENT REPORT


                    Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934


      Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) December 19, 1995


                        Property Resources Equity Trust


            (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)





California                         0-15880                      94-3959770


State or other          Commission File Number                  IRS Employer
jurisdiction of                                                 Identification
incorporation                                                   Number


                    1800 Gateway Drive, San Mateo, CA 94404


             (Address of Principal Executive Offices)  (Zip Code)


       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (415)312-3000

ITEM 5:     OTHER MATERIAL EVENTS.

Termination of contract to sell the Agora Office Building.

As previously reported in the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 1995, on November 1, 1995, the Registrant entered into an
Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the intent to sell the Agora Office
Building (the "Property") to an unaffiliated third party buyer, subject to
certain contractual contingencies.  On December 19, 1995, the Registrant was
informed by the prospective buyer that the buyer exercised its right to
terminate the contract.  Accordingly the contract has been terminated without
further obligation to either party.

The  Registrant  currently  intends to  continue  in its efforts to market the
Property for sale but no assurances  can be given as to whether or when a sale
may occur.


Dated:      January 9, 1996               PROPERTY RESOURCES EQUITY TRUST



                              BY:   /s/ David P. Goss
                                    David P. Goss
                                    President
Before the Second Division,

February 21, 1962

No. 66481.

#### Auto Imports, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/2315 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of overriders similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65691, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.