alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Bartley, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 8]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered January 6, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of sodomy in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to allege with specificity the precise date of commission of each of the crimes. The complainant was abused by her natural father when she was seven years old and, when the crimes were reported some four years later, the prosecutor acted diligently in instituting the criminal proceedings. Moreover, the period charged in the indictment was one month, October 1987. In view of the fact that the complainant *208was only seven years old at the time of the commission of these crimes and had been threatened with violence were she to report them, the allegations of time set forth in the indictment were sufficient under all of these circumstances. There is no proof that the People failed to act diligently in their investigatory efforts to narrow the precise dates of the crimes *(see, People v Watt,*84 NY2d 948; *People v Morris,*61 NY2d 290, 294-296).

Further, we reject defendant’s claim that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence. There is nothing in the complainant’s testimony which demonstrates that the jury’s verdict was manifestly erroneous or so plainly unjustified as would require this Court to disturb the verdict *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.
From: deann@megee.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:28:06 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,

Deann Megee

Spring, TX 77381
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: AMERICAN APPAREL, INC.,

2014 Derivative Shareholder Litigation,

PETER KRAVITZ, as Trustee for and on

behalf of AAI Litigation Trust,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

DOV CHARNEY, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56258

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05230-MWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 29, 2017** 

Pasadena, California

FILED

AUG 31 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: WARDLAW and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and ILLSTON,*** District

Judge.

 

Litigation Trustee Peter Kravitz appeals the district court’s order of

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or

comply with a court order. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing the case under Rule 41(b). See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983

(9th Cir. 1999); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992). On this record,

the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal and the district court was not

required to issue a clear warning or attempt less drastic alternatives before

dismissing the action without prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

*** The Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 384 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 384

   Congratulating the University of Wyoming Cowgirls for winning the 
  Women's National Invitational Tournament for the first time and for 
            their most successful season in school history.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2007

 Mrs. Cubin submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Congratulating the University of Wyoming Cowgirls for winning the 
  Women's National Invitational Tournament for the first time and for 
            their most successful season in school history.

Whereas on March 31, 2007, the University of Wyoming Cowgirls defeated the 
        University of Wisconsin Badgers by a score of 72-56 in the championship 
        basketball game of the Women's National Invitation Tournament;
Whereas the victory of these 14 very accomplished young women and their coach, 
        Joe Legerski, was witnessed by over 15,000 fans at the University of 
        Wyoming's sold out Arena-Auditorium;
Whereas the Cowgirls won 21 games in their regular season and tied for second in 
        the Mountain West Conference (MWC);
Whereas Jodi Bolerjack scored 16 points in the championship game and earned 
        Third Team All-MWC honors;
Whereas Elisabeth Dissen scored the last shot for the Cowgirls of the first 
        half, giving the team a 39-26 lead;
Whereas Megan McGuffey scored back-to-back layups in the second half, totaling 
        10 points for the game, and received the MWC Newcomer of the Year honor;
Whereas Justyna Podziemska scored 16 points in the championship game, had 10 
        rebounds, and 8 assists;
Whereas Dominique Sisk scored 5 points, had 2 assists, and 7 rebounds for the 
        Cowgirls;
Whereas Rebecca Vanderjagt scored 4 points and had 1 block during the 
        championship game;
Whereas Aubrey Vandiver brought a strong end to the first half, shooting or 
        assisting the last seven points;
Whereas Hanna Zavecz scored 12 points and earned the award of the Women's 
        National Invitation Tournament Most Valuable Player;
Whereas Amy Bolerjack, Mallory Cline, Annie Gorenstein, Angiah Harris, Gemma 
        Koehler, and Megan Mordecai also contributed to the team's top season; 
        and
Whereas these top athletes are also dedicated to academic achievement, and serve 
        as the standard of excellence, scholarship, and sportsmanship for the 
        entire Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives congratulates the 
University of Wyoming women's basketball team for their championship 
victory in the 2007 National Invitational Tournament.
                                 <all>
```
From: slooper2@austin.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:43 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,

Sheryl Looper

Austin, TX 78737
From: apcuts01@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:12:34 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,

Adam Cutsinger

Louisville, KY 40207
From: smeverhart@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:37:47 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,

Susan Everhart

Winter Park, FL 32789
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 20188 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MARLON ADALID CANALES

- ALMENDARES, also known as Carlos Ramirez Vasquez, also known as Marlon Adalid Canales

- Almedares, also known as Carlos Abila Almembares, also known as Carlos Abila

- Almenvares, also known as Carlos Ramirez

- Vasquez, also known as Carlos Pena, a lso known as Marlo Canales, also known as Marlon Adalid Canales Almendares , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 578

- 1

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marlon Adalid Canales

- Almendares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-20188 Document: 00513883897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017No. 16

- 20188

2 v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Canales

- Almendares h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-20188 Document: 00513883897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549








FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT





Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities Exchange Act of 1934





DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported): August 27, 2012





CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION


(EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)





Delaware(STATE OR OTHERJURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION)001-11241(COMMISSION FILENUMBER)37-1105865(IRS EMPLOYERIDENTIFICATIONNUMBER)





2120 West End Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee    37203-0001(ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)    (ZIP CODE)





Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (615) 341-1000





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:


o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))























---




I tem 8.01 Other Events .


Exhibits are filed herewith in connection with the issuance on August 27, 2012 by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (the “Company”) of $300,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its Medium-Term Notes, Series G, Floating Rate Notes due 2014 (the “Notes”) pursuant to the Company's previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-173364) (the “Registration Statement”) and the related Prospectus dated April 7, 2011, Prospectus Supplement dated April 7, 2011 and Pricing Supplement dated August 22, 2012, relating to the Notes.





Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits .





(d) Exhibits . The following Exhibits are filed as part of this Report and as Exhibits to the Registration Statement:





ExhibitNumberDescription5.1Opinion of Sidley Austin LLP, as to the legality of the Notes.23.1Consent of Sidley Austin LLP (included as part of Exhibit 5.1).














---




SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





Caterpillar Financial Services CorporationBy:/s/ J. Wesley BlumenshineName: J. Wesley BlumenshineTitle:   Secretary





Date: August 27, 2012














---




EXHIBIT INDEX








ExhibitNumberDescription5.1Opinion of Sidley Austin LLP, as to the legality of the Notes.23.1Consent of Sidley Austin LLP (included as part of Exhibit 5.1).
From: bbjlb@mtcnet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:42:31 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,

Betty Bolkema

Hull, IA 51239
From: dsbeng@centurytel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:55:28 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,

D Byle

Kalispell, MT 59904