alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: wayne@wagonwheelllc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:24:09 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,

Robert White

Knoxville, TN 37912
From: sue.kellenberger@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:43:03 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,

Sue Kellenberger

Fort Wayne, IN 46807
Before the Second Division,

September 15, 1966

No. P66/217. —

#### ACEC Electric Corp. *v.*United States, protests 63/22632, 64/11917, and 64/25288 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of sewing machine motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *ACEC Electric Corp.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 138, C.D. 2563), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: rkoss@rochester.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:29:53 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,

Kathleen Koss

Hamlin, NY 14464
From: mapelleg@southernco.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:00:16 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,

Maria Pellegrino

Biloxi, MS 39531
From: sforee@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:28:52 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.

Yes, this message was a "paste and copy", however, it expresses my own heartfelt feelings and beliefs.

We must be free to live according to our conscience and not be forced by federal law to accept harmful

policies.

Sincerely,

Sharon Foree

Bellevue, WA 98006
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): April 24, 2014





Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation


(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)





001-11241


(Commission File Number)





Delaware37-1105865(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)(IRS Employer Identification Number)





2120 West End Avenue


Nashville, Tennessee 37203-0001


(Address of principal executive offices, with zip code)





(615) 341-1000


(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)








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:





 ̈Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ̈Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ̈Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ̈Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))







---







Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition.





On April 24, 2014, Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation issued a press release reporting financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.  A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated into this Item 2.02 by reference.





The information in this Current Report on Form 8-K, including Exhibit 99.1, is being furnished in accordance with the provisions of General Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K.








Item 9.01.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.








d)Exhibits:99.1Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation press release dated April 24, 2014








SIGNATURES





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, thereunto duly authorized.





Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation








Date:  April 24, 2014By:/s/ J. Wesley BlumenshineJ. Wesley BlumenshineSecretary





2


---







EXHIBIT INDEX








Exhibit No.Description99.1Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation press release dated April 24, 2014














3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2219

BRAD D. RAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE; RONALD WILLIAMS, President; PAUL MAZZEI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03- 2915-8-RWT) Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederic M. Brandes, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellant. V. Daniel Palumbo, Fort Washington, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Brad D. Ray appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The record does not contain a transcript of the July 19, 2004 hearing on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Despite repeated requests beginning in April 2005, neither Ray nor his counsel has either obtained a transcript or filed a motion for a transcript at government expense. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2000). By failing to produce a transcript or apply to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Ray has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. See Powell v. Estelle , 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992); Keller v. Prince George’s County , 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district court’s order. We grant Ray’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Case No. 10,214.

#### NEW YORK RECTIFYING CO. v. UNITED STATES.

[14 Blatchf. 549.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

June 27, 1878.

Intoxicating Liquors — “Wholesale Dealers. ”

Under section 3319 of the Revised Statutes, if a rectifier purchases from an authorized distiller, who is not an authorized rectifier or an authorized wholesale liquor dealer, distilled spirits. in quantities greater than 20 gallons, which were not produced by such authorized distiller, such purchaser is liable to the penalty imposed by said section 3319.

[In error to the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.)

Thomas Harland, for plaintiff in error.

Stewart L. Woodford, Dist. Atty., for defendants in error.

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel Blatchford, Circuit Judge, and here repainted by permission.]

*159WAITE, Circuit Justice.

Section 3319 of the Revised Statutes is as follows: “It shall not he lawful for any rectifier of distilled spirits, or wholesale or retail liquor dealer, to purchase or receive any distilled spirits, in quantities greater than twenty gallons, from any person other than an authorized rectifier of distilled spirits, distiller, or wholesale liquor dealer. Every person who violates this section shall forfeit and pay one thousand dollars: provided,” &c. The plaintiff in error, a rectifier of distilled spirits, contracted with Fleischman & Co., authorized distillers, for twenty-five barrels of highwines, to be delivered August 14th, 1873. On the day named Fleischman & Co. delivered fifteen barrels of their own manufacture, and announced their inability to deliver more. The full number being insisted upon, Fleischman & Co. delivered, and the plaintiff in error received, under the contract, the remaining ten barrels, stamped and marked in a manner to indicate that they had been made by some distiller other than Fleischman & Co. Fleischman & Co. were not authorized rectifiers, or authorized wholesale or retail liquor dealers. .Upon this state of facts the district court properly gave judgment against the plaintiff in error, for the penalty imposed by the section just quoted. A distiller is only authorized, by virtue of his occupation as a distiller, to sell spirits of his own production. Every person who sells spirits, except as a distiller properly may, is a wholesale or retail liquor dealer, according to the quantity he. sells. Rev. St. § 3244, par. 4. Fleischman & Co., in their sale and delivery of the ten barrels, acted as wholesale dealers and not as distillers. Not being authorized wholesale dealers, the plaintiff in error, a rectifier, was prohibited by the statute from receiving this delivery from them. Judgment affirmed.
From: jan.wimsatt@homeinstead.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:22:20 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,

Jan Wimsatt

Las Cruces, NM 88007
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

November 16, 2006

ERRATA

Appeal No. 05-5158

KEVIN J. METZ V. UNITED STATES

Decided: September 18, 2006 Precedential Opinion

Please make the following change:

Page 9 line 26 after “this court” insert --in the panel portion of the opinion

elaborated and--

Page 9 line 35 delete “(en banc portion)”

Page 10 line 6 delete “above language of our en banc”

Page 10 line 8 change “states” to --holds--
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 29, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00860-CV

TRAVIS EILAND, Appellant

V.

JASON PITRE AND GVCR INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 344th District Court

Chambers County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22DCV0155

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed May 11, 2023. The reporter’s record 

was filed December 15, 2023. The clerk’s record was filed March 7, 2024. No brief 

was filed even appellant was granted an extension of time to file the brief.

On July 9, 2024, we issued an order stating that unless appellant filed a brief 

on or before August 8, 2024, the appeal was subject to dismissal without further 

notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant was granted 
2

one further extension of time to August 19, 2024 to file his brief and was further 

warned that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional 

circumstances, but appellant did not file his brief by that deadline, and he did not file 

any other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.