alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Registration No. 333-73083 424 (b)(2)
                                     Pricing Supplement No:241 Cusip:14912LF22
                                     Dated:  June 23,1999

	Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation
	Medium-Term Notes, Series F
	(Fixed Rate)
	With Maturities of 9 Months or More from Date of Issue
	Interest payable each April 1 and October 1 and at Maturity

Principal Amount:       Interest Rate:                Proceed Amount:
$50,000,000                 5.77%                       $49,975,000

Original Issue Date:    Commission Fee:               Maturity Date:
06/28/1999                $25,000                       07/21/2000

Dealer:
Chase Securities Inc.


Specified Currency:     Option to Elect Payment       Authorized Denominations
x U.S. dollars          in U.S. dollars               (only applicable if
_ Other:___________     (only applicable if           Specified Currency is
                        Specified Currency is         other than U.S.
                        other than U.S. dollars):      N/A
                           N/A

The Note is a:                                        Exchange Rate Agent
    X Global Note                                     (if other than First
      Certificated Note                                Trust New York): N/A
      (only applicable if
       Specified Currency
       is other than U.S. dollars)

Original Issue           Total Amount of OID: N/A    Terms of Amortizing
Discount Note:                                       Notes:  N/A
   Yes     x No          Issue Price (expressed
                         as a percentage of
                         aggregate principal
                         amount): 100%


Redemption Date(s) (including                        Redemption Price(s): N/A
any applicable regular or
special record dates): N/A

Repayment Date(s) (including                         Repayment Price(s): N/A
any applicable regular or
special record dates):  N/A

Interest Rate Reset Option:  _ Yes    X No

Optional Reset Dates (only applicable if option to reset interest rate):  N/A

Basis for Interest Rate Reset (only applicable if option to reset interest
rate): N/A

Stated Maturity Extension Option:  _ Yes    x No

Extension Period(s) and Final Maturity Date (only applicable if option to
extend stated maturity): N/A

Basis for Interest Rate During Extension Period (only applicable if option to
extend stated maturity): N/A



Historical Exchange Rate (only applicable if Specified Currency other than
U.S. dollars): N/A

     The interest rates on the Notes may be changed by Caterpillar Financial
Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect
the interest rate on any Note ordered prior to the effective date of the
change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $994.80MM principal
amount of the Notes had been sold at interest rates then in effect.

	_________________________________

	Pricing Supplement to Prospectus Supplement dated March 25, 1999
	and Prospectus dated March 25, 1999
IV 

House Calendar No. 49 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 364 

[Report No. 110–120] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate 

crimes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2007 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide 

Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local juris4 dictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and 

5 for other purposes. All points of order against consider6 ation of the bill are waived except those arising under 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

HRES 364 RH 

1 clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 

2 of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Ju3 diciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 

4 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accom5 panying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 

6 The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 

7 points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. 

8 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 

9 the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 

10 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

11 controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

12 of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion 

13 to recommit with or without instructions. 

14 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1592 pursuant 

15 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

16 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid17 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

18 the Speaker. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS

jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 49 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 364 

[Report No. 110

–120] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1592) 

crimes, and for other purposes. risdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate to provide Federal assistance to States, local juMAY 2, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
From: free-dan@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:41:31 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,

Danny Nix

Lawrenceburg, TN 38464
EUGENE HEATLY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1442

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed August 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

.

Eugene Heatly, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney

General

, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance 

Company, CNA Insurance Company, and Automatic Data 

Processing Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-15-00066-CV

Trial court case number: 1997-48526

Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County

On July 9, 2015, this Court granted the motion by appellant, Patrick Olajide 

Akinwamide, proceeding pro se, to supplement the clerk’s record and to abate the case to 

settle the dispute over inaccuracies in the reporter’s record for the show cause hearing, 

held on October 24, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1), 34.6(e)(3). On July 23, 2015, 

a compliant supplemental clerk’s record with all Exhibits A-K to “Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Set Aside the Final Judgment” was filed in this Court. See id. (c)(3). On September 16, 

2015, appellant filed a motion to compel the trial court and court coordinator to comply 

with our July 9, 2015 Order of Abatement. On October 5, 2015, a compliant 

supplemental reporter’s record containing the complete show cause hearing and a 

separate exhibit volume for that hearing, held on October 24, 2014, were filed in this 

Court. See id. 34.6(d), (e)(2).

Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on this Court’s active docket. 

Appellant’s motion to compel is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Furthermore, appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days

from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.6(a)(2), (d). Appellee’s brief, if 

any, is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days from the filing of appellant’s brief. 

See id. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes



Date: October 20, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from
Players Network Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001037131
<NAME>                        PLAYERS NETWORK
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       81,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   488,131
<PP&E>                                             436,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,084,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              478,947
<BONDS>                                            121,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             8,178
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,457,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,084,311
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   387,211
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   400,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (16,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.002)



</TABLE>
a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial 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 purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and 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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant 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 financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:  June 4, 2008
    /s/ MICHAEL L. HENRYMichael L. HenryChief Financial Officer 3
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 2110

CHRISTOPHER DOLIN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JORDAN KINDRED , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 00597

- HEH )

Submitted : January 2 1 , 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Christopher Dolin, Appellant Pro Se. William Fisher Etherington, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, PC , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Dolin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2018) for fail ure to state a claim. We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 47 (1949). Because the district court’s order sugges ts that Dolin could potentially cure the defects in the complaint identified by the district court , we conclude that the order Dolin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y,
In c. , 807 F.3d 619, 623

- 24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction , and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Dolin to amend his complaint. Goode , 807 F.3d at 630. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED
EXHIBIT 23
     
  
  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
     
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
 Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-47081 and No. 33-
 39299) of Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation of our report
 dated January 20, 1999 appearing on page 12 of this Form 10-K.
     
  
  
  
     
 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
 
 New York, New York
 February 25, 1999
                                  
<PAGE>31
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Integrated Circuit Systems,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 28, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission February 11, 2003, as amended
by Amendment No. 1 thereto filed on the date hereof (as amended, the "Report"),
I, Justine F. Lien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Justine F. Lien
-----------------------------
Justine F. Lien
Chief Financial Officer
February 13, 2003
From: itto@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:40:52 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,

Michelle Knight

Lancaster, PA 17603
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10249 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JOE GARY RIVAS, JR.
,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:02

- CR

- 42

- 1

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Joe Gary Rivas, Jr.
, federal prisoner # 00278

- 180 and proceeding pro se , is serving a sentence of life imprisonment
, imposed following his conviction of
conspir ing to import five kilograms or more of cocaine and 1,000 kilograms or

more of mari h uana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. In the matter that gives

rise to this appeal, Rivas filed a successive motion for a reduction in his

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 26, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10249 Document: 00515051177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2019No. 19

- 10249

2 sentence , pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and based on Amendment 7 8 2 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion.

Rivas contends he was e l igible for a sentence reduction based on

Amendment 782 because the amendment reduced his base offense level. The denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Gen erally, we

review de novo whether a district court has authority to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Jones , 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). At his original sentencing, Rivas’ total offense level was 39, with a

criminal h istory category VI, resulting in a G uidelines sentencing range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Although Amendment 782 reduced Rivas’ base
offense level from 38 to 36, and in turn reduced his total offense level to 37, it

did not lower his sentencing r ange ; it remains 360 months to life
imprisonment , as Rivas acknowledges in his brief. Because Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering the applicable G uidelines sentencing range,
the district court was not authorized to reduce Rivas’ sente nce

. S ee § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10249 Document: 00515051177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2019