alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-(4).(c)



 The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York 

A STOCK COMPANY         NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

 
  
  

 
 FLEXIBLE PAYMENT FIXED AND VARIABLE DEFERRED ANNUITY CONTRACT 

Nonparticipating 
 Copyright © 2015 American International Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 

  

					
	US-803 (12/15)	  	 21
	  	









 



 
 CONTRACT DATA PAGE Contract Number: [P9999999999] ?1 Contract Date: [May 2, 2016] ?1 Owner: [JOHN DOE] ?1 Date of Birth:
[March 1, 1976] ?1 Age at Issue: [35]?1 2? [Owner: [JANE DOE] ?1 Date of Birth: [June 10, 1976] ?1 Age at Issue: [34] ?1] Annuitant: [JOHN DOE] ?1 Date of Birth: [March 1, 1976] ?1 Age at Issue: [35] ?1 2? [Annuitant: [JANE DOE] Date of Birth: [June
10, 1976] ?1 Age at Issue: [34] ?1] Beneficiary: As named by You Initial Purchase Payment: [$10,000.00] ?1 Maximum Purchase Payment Without Our Approval: [$1,000,000]?3 Purchase Payment Age Limit: [Prior to the 86th birthday]?4 Minimum Subsequent
Purchase Payment: [$500] ?5 Purchase Payments are subject to the limitations defined in this Contract. Fixed Account Options – Minimum Guarantee Rate: [1.0%] ?6 With 30 days advance notice, we may cease offering the Fixed Account Options, Fixed
Account Guarantee Period Options and/or Dollar Cost Averaging Fixed Account Options if market conditions are such that we are not able to credit the Minimum Guarantee Rate Shown on this page. Fixed Account Options: [1 Year Fixed, 6 Month DCA Fixed,
1 Year DCA Fixed] ?7 Minimum Partial Withdrawal Amount: [$1,000] ?8 Maximum Penalty-Free Withdrawal Percentage: [10%]?9 Minimum Systematic Withdrawal Amount: [$100] ?10 Minimum Amount Remaining After a Partial Withdrawal: [$2,500] ?11 Withdrawal
Charge Schedule: Number of Full Years Elapsed Withdrawal Charge as a Between Purchase Payment Contribution Percentage of Withdrawn And Date of Withdrawal Purchase Payment 0 8% 1 7% 12? 2 6% 3 5% 4+ 0% See Page [13] for Withdrawal Provisions. ?13


  

					
	US-803-PPS4 (12/15)	  	 3
	  	









 



 
 CONTRACT DATA PAGE (Cont’d.) Minimum Transfer Amount: [$100] ?14 Separate Account Charge (including guaranteed
death benefit risk charge of [0.10%]): ?15 Contract Years [1-4]: [1.70%]?15 Contract Years [5 & thereafter]: [1.30%]?15 Annual Contract Maintenance Fee: [$50]?16 Transfer Fee: [$25] ?17 Earliest Annuity Date After the Contract Date: 13
months Latest Annuity Date: [1st day of the month following Your 95th Birthday] ?18 Separate Account: [FS VARIABLE SEPARATE ACCOUNT] ?19 Optional Elections: Optional Election Details: Maximum Anniversary Value See Attached Endorsement USLE-8023
(12/15) ?20 

  

					
	US-803-PPS4 (12/15)	  	 4
|   |
|--------|

**Filed      Pursuant To Rule 433, Registration No. 333-124310**
** **

**$1,000,000,000**

**CATERPILLAR      FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION**

| Current                as of: 8/14/2006 2:30:02 PM EST    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| **For                the Period: 8/14/2006 to 8/21/2006** |
|                                                      |

| **Coupon** | **Interest**                       | **Maturity** | **Callable**     | **Survivor's****Option** | **Price****1** | **Yield****2** | **Moody's** | **S&P** | **CUSIP** |
|------------|------------------------------------|--------------|------------------|--------------------------|----------------|----------------|-------------|-------------|-----------|
| 5.250%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 2/15/11      | NO               | YES§           | 100.00         | 5.250%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q4U2 |
| 5.850%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 8/15/16      | 8/15/08***  | YES§           | 100.00         | 5.849%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q4V0 |
| 6.050%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 8/15/21      | 8/15/09***  | YES§           | 100.00         | 6.049%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q4W8 |
| 6.100%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 8/15/26      | 8/15/10***  | YES§           | 100.00         | 6.099%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q4X6 |

*All      offerings are subject to prior sale.*
From: vicbo3@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:07:44 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,

Vicki Jones

, 19966-7217
From: carol.j.schultz@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:11:43 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,

Carol Schultz

Wheaton, IL 60187
No. 148, Misc.

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

Baltimore City Court of Maryland. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cellcom I Corp. on Form 10-KSB for
the year ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay H. Brown, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Report 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: December 26, 2006                 By: /s/ Jay H. Brown
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jay H. Brown
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                       20
From: Raytierney46@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:38:27 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,

Raymond Tierney

North Providence, RI 02911
From: dwaynewelch@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:36:43 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,

Dwayne Welch

Robert Lee, TX 76945
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7113
ERIC SAMUELS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY; JOSEPH BLACK; L. G. ALLEN; WILLIAM D. CATOE, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Caro lina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2320-3-6BC) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 11, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Samuels, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & KOBROVSKY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). Themagistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate reviewby failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                                    | Three Months EndedJune 30, |   | Six Months EndedJune 30, |
|                                                                    | 2017 |   | 2016 |   | 2017 |   | 2016 |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit of consolidated companies                                        | $ | 115 |  |   | $ | 104 |  |   | $ | 232 |  |   | $ | 205 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Add:                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Provision for income taxes                                              | 49 |  |   | 44 |  |   | 99 |  |   | 88 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes                                              | $ | 164 |  |   | $ | 148 |  |   | $ | 331 |  |   | $ | 293 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                        | $ | 168 |  |   | $ | 152 |  |   | $ | 330 |  |   | $ | 307 |  |
| Rentals at computed interest*                                           | 2 |  |   | 2 |  |   | 3 |  |   | 3 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                     | $ | 170 |  |   | $ | 154 |  |   | $ | 333 |  |   | $ | 310 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes plus fixed charges                           | $ | 334 |  |   | $ | 302 |  |   | $ | 664 |  |   | $ | 603 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of profit before income taxes plus fixed charges to fixed charges | 1.96 |  |   | 1.96 |  |   | 1.99 |  |   | 1.95 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
EXHIBIT 21.1
================================================================================


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

     NEMA Properties, LLC, ("NEMA") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Registrant.
NEMA is organized under the laws of the State of Nevada and is doing business
under the name NEMA Properties, LLC.

     Amen Minerals, L.P., is owned 99% by NEMA as the sole limited partner and
1% by Amen Properties, Inc., as the sole general partner, and is organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware and the Limited Partnership is doing business
under the name Amen Minerals, L.P.

     Amen Delaware, L.P. is owned 99% by NEMA as the sole limited partner and 1%
by Amen Properties, Inc., as the sole general partner, and is organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware and the Limited Partnership is doing business
under the name Amen Delaware, L.P.

     W Power and Light, L.P. is owned 99% by NEMA as the sole limited partner
and 1% by Amen Properties, Inc., as the sole general partner, and is organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware and the Limited Partnership is doing
business under the name W Power and Light, L.P.

     Priority Power Management, Ltd. is owned 99% by NEMA as the sole limited
partner and 1% by Amen Properties, Inc., as the sole general partner, and is
organized under the laws of the State of Texas and the Limited Partnership is
doing business under the name W Power and Light, L.P.


                                       37
August 17, 1959

No. 63309.

protest 246655-K.

#### Chas. H. Demarest, Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
From: sjt5373@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:22:17 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,

Stephanie Turner

Sheridan, AR 72150