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

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  484                                                                   Trade Date:  09/20/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   09/23/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementSeptember 20, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                  Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QWD9  4.25%        09/15/12        100%                1.42%                  Monthly                      YES         NO                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$1,558,000.00         $1,535,876.40         ABN AMRO Inc.        10/15/04               30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                         Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) 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 (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $164.601 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

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.
Before the First Division,

March 23, 1967

No. P67/74.

No. P67/75.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

protests 58/7806, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

protests 61/6587, etc. (Philadelphia).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rush bags or baskets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Garson M. Simon <& Go.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2558), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

(note : The following protests were decided by a special first division consisting of Oliver, Watson, and Bao, Judges.)
From: marlaweeks@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:00 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,

Marla Weeks

Colorado Springs, CO 80920
From: fsullivan003@hot.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:59:52 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,

Fred Sullivan

Killeen, TX 76549
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION 

TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS FILING DATE - 1

(Peter Douglas Lockwood CR05-367-JCC)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington

(206) 553-1100

JUDGE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PETER DOUGLAS LOCKWOOD,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-367-JCC

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR

FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the joint motion of the parties

for an order continuing the deadline for filing pretrial motions in this cause, and the

Court having considered the joint motion of the parties, together with the balance of the

records and files herein, the Court now finds and rules as follows:

On November 3, 2005, the parties filed a joint motion seeking a continuance of

the deadline for filing retrial motions in this cause. Trial presently is scheduled to begin

on December 5, 2005, and pretrial motions are due on November 3, 2005.

The defendant, Peter Douglas Lockwood, is represented by Assistant Federal

Public Defender Nancy Tenney and the United States is represented by Assistant United

States Attorney Tessa Gorman. The parties have requested additional time to pursue the

possible resolution of this matter without the necessity of a trial. 

Case 2:05-cr-00367-JCC Document 16 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION 

TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS FILING DATE - 2

(Peter Douglas Lockwood CR05-367-JCC)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington

(206) 553-1100

//

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties for a continuance

of the deadline for filing pretrial motions is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for filing pretrial motions shall be

continued from November 3, 2005 to November 10, 2005.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2005.AUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/Nancy Tenney 

 WSBA No. 35304

 Attorney for Peter Douglas Lockwood

 Federal Public Defender’s Office

 1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

 Seattle, WA 98101

 206/553-1100

 206/553-0120

 Nancy_Tenney@fd.org

s/Tessa Gorman

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 700 Stewart St., Suite 5220

 Seattle, WA 98101-1271

 206/553-4213

 Tessa.Gorman@usdoj.gov

Case 2:05-cr-00367-JCC Document 16 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CURT F. HANSFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1846-MAT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

Petitioner is a state prisoner who has filed pro se a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has filed her answer to the petition. (Doc. #10). In his response

to respondent’s answer, petitioner includes a motion to amend his petition to name a proper

respondent and also seeks appointment of counsel. (Doc. #13). In support of his motion for

counsel, petitioner has submitted an affidavit from a woman named Tarea Lujan, who states that

petitioner suffers from a medical condition – “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” – that

interferes with his ability to represent himself. (Doc. #14). The court, having considered

petitioner’s motion, the affidavit, and the balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Petitioner’s motion to amend his petition to name a proper respondent is

GRANTED. Petitioner’s petition is hereby amended to name Alice Payne as respondent instead

of Joseph Lehman.

Case 2:05-cv-01846-JLR Document 15 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -2

(2) Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #13) is DENIED. There is

no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary

hearing is required. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Rule 8(c) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Although the court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible

individual where the “interests of justice so require” under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, petitioner fails to

demonstrate that the interests of justice would be best served by appointment of counsel in this

matter. The court notes that Ms. Lujan, who attests in her affidavit to petitioner’s medical

condition, does not claim to be a doctor, nurse, or health professional of any kind. Therefore, her

affidavit is of questionable probative value regarding petitioner’s mental ability. In addition, even

if the affidavit were given weight, the court notes that petitioner has been able to file a response

to respondent’s answer, and the matter is ready for consideration by the court.

(3) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent,

and to the Honorable James L. Robart.

DATED this 29th day of March , 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01846-JLR Document 15 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2
TS-CKHI01

Attachment #9

Physical and Chemical Properties Data on the New Chemical Substance 

Molecular Weight Data 
 Page 2 of 7 

 Simplified version for 

 

 

1. Formula and molecular weight

1.1 Formula

1.2 Molecular weight and distribution
Before the Third Division,

February 21, 1962

No. 66491.

#### James G. Wiley and Pacific Cherry & Fruit Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/3104, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that involved in *Dalton Cooper, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 2051), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

Donlon, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in C.D. 2061, *supra.*
506th Judicial District Court 

Albert M. McCaig, Jr., Judge 

www .Court506.com 

May 5, 2015 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

RECEIVED i~l COIJRT o~ r~tt:A!M~~- ~PPE.'.LS 

MAY 07 2015 

Ab@ll Acosta, Cferk 

Re: Writs Number 08-09-12976D through 08-09-12986D 

Criminal Trial Court Number 08-09-12976 

Ex Parte 

William Andrew Allen 

Clerk: 

Court Coordinator 

Susie Schubert 

Court Reporter 

Robyn S. Wiley 

Grimes County 

Waller County 

836 Austin Street, Suite 307 

Hempstead, Texas 77445 

Fax: 979.826.9149 

Ofc: 979.921.0921 

I am the trial court judge in the referenced matter. The cases were originally heard by 

the 1551

h Judicial District Court. By Legislative act (Section 24.254, Government Code), 

effective January 1, 2014, the 506th Judicial District Court took over all cases pending in the 

155th Judicial District Court. 

The Applicant, Mr. William Andrew Allen, has made numerous filings with the trial 

court pertaining to his 11.07 Writ applications, many of which have had to do with his 

contention that the 506th court does not have jurisdiction of his cases. I have personally 

written to inform Mr. Allen of the effect of the change of courts. 

Mr. Allen's frequent and continuous supplementation and filings has required both 

this court and the Waller County District Clerk, to provide eleven separate supplements to 

the several 11.07 Applications each time Mr. Allen files new allegations. This has become 

labor and resource intensive, consumes valuable time, and, to date, does not appear to have 

provided any substantial new information to your court. · 

I am requesting the Honorable Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to declare Mr. 

William Andrew Allen a vexatious litigant, and to deny him further access to the courts until 

his current applications for 11.07 relief have been ruled on by your court. 

AMMI 

c: Waller County District Clerk 

Mr. William Andrew Allen 

ks(!(~cC Judge, Presiding 

Mr. Elton Mathis, Waller County District Attorney
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              66
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                       562
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,682
<PP&E>                                             606
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        328
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,779)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,307
<SALES>                                         11,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,684
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (308)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (308)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
From: kmcardiff@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:34:26 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,

Katherine Cardiff

Baltimore, MD 21202
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            2325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       39
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2827
<PP&E>                                            4553
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            54
<OTHER-SE>                                        4519
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8705
<SALES>                                           4261
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4261
<CGS>                                             2488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2856
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1083)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1083)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>