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.  361                                                               Trade Date:  11/17/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                     Issue Date:   11/20/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementNovember 17, 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)

14911QRA1   3.05%                        05/15/07          100%                    0.75%                  Quarterly           YES            NO                

                          

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$2,706,000.00                $2,685,705.00         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, $341.018 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.
#### Karen Dalzell, Appellant, v McDonald’s Corp., Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 635]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated January 28, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, an employee of W & K Management, Inc., the licensee and operator of a McDonald’s restaurant in Farming-dale, New York, was sexually assaulted during the course of an armed robbery that occurred shortly after midnight on January 7, 1991. The premises are owned by the defendant *639and leased to the licensee, W & K Management. The plaintiff commenced the instant action alleging, *inter alia,*that the defendant’s negligent failure to install and maintain a security system or to implement a security program was a cause of her injuries. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint finding, in essence, that the defendant, as an out-of-possession landlord, had no duty of care toward the plaintiff.

It is well settled that an out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless the. owner or lessor has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repair or maintain the premises *(see, Putnam v Stout,*38 NY2d 607; *Dufficy v Wharf Bar & Grill,*217 AD2d 646; *Gelardo v ASMA Realty Corp.,*137 AD2d 787).

Here, the lease and licensing agreements required W & K Management to maintain the premises and make all necessary repairs. The defendant’s reservation of a right to enter and to inspect the premises is insufficient to impose liability on the defendant *(see, Bettis v County of Nassau,*212 AD2d 749; *Silver v Brodsky,*112 AD2d 213). Moreover, there was no evidence that the defendant had retained a sufficient degree of dominion and control over the leased premises to provide a basis for the imposition of liability *(see, Ahmad v Getty Petroleum Corp.,*217 AD2d 600).

Finally, there is no evidence of any affirmative conduct on the part of the defendant which would show that it had assumed a duty of care toward the plaintiff *(cf., Cohen v Heritage Motor Tours,*205 AD2d 105; *Martin v McDonald’s Corp.,*213 111 App 3d 487, 572 NE2d 1073).

Accordingly, we find that the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.
No. 66502.

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/14046, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the *354subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), tbe claim of tbe plaintiffs was sustained.
From: lnkhil@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:01:04 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,

Ellen Cahill

Hampton, NH 03842
From: brgardner@toast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:14:55 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,

Brian Gardmer

Jackson, MI 49202
Jeffrey M. Harper FAA Office of Regional Counsel 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98057 T (425) 227-2161 F (425) 227-1007 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# RE

HEM4.!

In the Matter of: FAA CaseNo. 2011NM060095 DMS No. FAA-2013-0617 SkyWest Airlines, Inc. Honorable Richard C. Goodwin



### NOTICE OF APPEAL 

# rvED

DOCKET

In accordance with 14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(a), Complainant hereby submits Notice ofhis intentto appealthe Initial Decision ofAdministrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin, served July 16, 2015. Respectfully submitted this 22"d day ofJuly, 2015.

Jj;M. Harper fAA Attorney

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoingNotice ofAppeal has been served via facsimile, electronic mail and Certified Mail -ReturnReceipt Requested this date, to the following: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 F (202) 366-7536 E Richard.goodwin@dot.gov Todd Emerson, Esq. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 444 SouthRiver Road St. George, UT 84790 F (435) 634-3505 E temerson@skywest.com Ihereby certify thatthe foregoingNotice ofAppeal has been served via facsimile, and Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 F (202) 267-1293 Datedthis 22nd day ofJuly, 2015.

Notice ofAppeal In the Matter of SkyWest Airlines, Inc. FAA Gase No. 2011NM060095, DMS No. FAA-2013-0617 Page 2 of 2 Jeffrey M. Harper, FAA Attorney T (425) 227-2161 F (425) 227·1007
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10-Q of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David W. Wallis, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                   
|/s/ David W. Wallis
|Name:               |  | David W. Wallis                      
|Title:              |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:               |  | May 10, 2011
From: djmconsulting@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:42:15 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,

Daniel McNicoll

Canoga Park, CA 91304
EXHIBIT 10.22(a)







SCHEDULE A TO EXHIBIT 10.22







The following individuals entered into director retirement agreements with The Ohio Valley Bank Company which are identical to the Director Retirement Agreement, dated December 19, 2017, between Kimberly A. Canady and The Ohio Valley Bank Company filed herewith.







	
Name

	 	
Date of Agreement


	 	 	 
	
Edward J. Robbins

	 	
December 19, 2017
From: poprand@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:59:01 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,

Jimmie Rand

Sweeny, TX 77480
From: slippert@cinci.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:27:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the 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. No drug should be "free." This aspect

of the law is morally wrong as it is saying cotraceptives trump my child's sore throat medicine. Or my

cholesteral medicine. That is patently unfair.

I also ask you to re-visit 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 its 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

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,

Steve Lippert

Cincinnati, OH 45248
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-K filed by AB&T Corporation (the “Issuer”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects,        the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.

     

Date: March 27, 2009      */s/ Daniel C. Ayscue*     

                                           Daniel C. Ayscue

                                           President and Chief Executive Officer                                                   (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
From: kneppconstruction@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:43:21 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,

Keith Knepp Jr

Austin, TX 78739
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00245

- CR

Charles Garza v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- CR

- 3387

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. Febrauary 7, 2019
No. 63794.

protests 121895-K, etc. (New York).

#### Capitol Wine & Spirit Corp. *v.*United States,

*339Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.,*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.