alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Registration No. 333-73083 424 (b)(2)
                                     Pricing Supplement No:230 Cusip:14912LD73
                                     Dated:  June 02,1999

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

Principal Amount:       Interest Rate:                Proceed Amount:
$25,000,000                 5.95%                       $24,968,750

Original Issue Date:    Commission Fee:               Maturity Date:
06/07/1999                $31,250                       01/08/2001

Dealer:
Merrill Lynch


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

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

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


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

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

Interest Rate Reset Option:  _ Yes    X No

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

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

Stated Maturity Extension Option:  _ Yes    x No

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

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



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

     The interest rates on the Notes may be changed by Caterpillar Financial
Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect
the interest rate on any Note ordered prior to the effective date of the
change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $553.80MM principal
amount of the Notes had been sold at interest rates then in effect.

	_________________________________

	Pricing Supplement to Prospectus Supplement dated March 25, 1999
	and Prospectus dated March 25, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,414
<SECURITIES>                                     2,006
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,197)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,487
<PP&E>                                          15,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,014
<SALES>                                         30,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,220
<CGS>                                           14,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (166)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,573
<INCOME-TAX>                                       980
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,593
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
From: jjames211@centurytel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:22:17 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,

Barbara Patterson

Gig Harbor, WA 98329
From: markhammiller@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:40:54 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,

Shirley Miller

Cedar City, UT 84720
---

EXHIBIT
15





ACCOUNTANT’S
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT





To the
Board of Directors and Shareholders of Mediware Information Systems,
Inc.:





We have
reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of
Mediware Information Systems, Inc. for the three-month period ended September
30, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in our report dated November 3, 2009; because we
did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.





We are
aware that Mediware Information Systems, Inc. has incorporated by reference in
Registration Statement Nos. 333-07591, 333-83016, 333-119503,
333-123496 and 333-130576, its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009, which includes our report dated November 3, 2009 covering the unaudited
interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), that report is not considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or
certified by our firm within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of the Act. It
should be noted that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to November
3, 2009.





Eisner
LLP


New York,
New York


November
3, 2009
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350





The
      undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"), hereby
      certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-Q for the Company’s fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the
      "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Daniel C. DunnDaniel
                C. DunnVice
                President, Chief Financial Officer & SecretaryNovember
                7, 2008
No. 67114.

protests 61/10942, etc. (New York).

#### Ace Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ballet dancing figures on jewelry boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66652, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion s h ould 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 October 5, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30560 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALBERT BAHAM; JACK WILLIE, Defendants-Appellants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No. 03-30580 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JACK WILLIE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CR-236-2 USDC No. 01-CR-292-1-C

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *2 Counsel appoint ed to represent Albert Baham and Jack
Willie in appeal No. 03-30560 have requested leave to withdraw and
have filed a brief as required by A nders v. California , 386 U.S.
7 38 (1967). Willie’s same court-appointed attorney has also requested leave to withdraw and has filed an Anders brief in appeal

No. 03-30580. We s ua sponte consolidate the appeals pursuant to

F ED . R. A PP . P. 3(b)(2).

In appeal No. 03-30560, Baham and Willie have each filed
separate responses in w hich they both seek the appointment of
substit ute counsel. Baham’s and Willie’s p ro se requests are
DENIED

. Our indepen dent review of counsels’ briefs and the
records for both appeals discloses no nonfrivolous issues.
Counsels’ motions for leave to withdraw are GRANTED, counsel are
excused from further responsibilities, and appeal Nos. 03-30560 and
03-30580 are DISMISSED

. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

APPEALS CONSOLIDATED; PRO SE REQUESTS FOR SUBSTITUTE

APPELLATE COUNSEL DENIED; APP EALS DISMISSED; MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW

GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 32-1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 5 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:





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





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.











/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date: February 14, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 527 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 11, 2007.
Whereas an estimated 1,300,000 to 2,800,000 youths in the United States are 
        homeless for at least one night each year, with many staying on the 
        streets or in emergency shelters;
Whereas homeless youth are typically too poor to secure basic needs, are often 
        unable to access adequate medical or mental health care, and are often 
        unaware of supportive services that are available;
Whereas an average of 13 homeless youth die each day due to physical assault, 
        illness, or suicide;
Whereas some homeless youth are expelled from their homes or run away after 
        physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by their parents or guardians, or 
        are separated from their parents through death or divorce;
Whereas other youth become homeless due to a lack of financial and housing 
        resources as they exit juvenile corrections or foster care, including 25 
        percent of foster youth who experience homelessness within two to four 
        years after exiting foster care;
Whereas awareness of the tragedy of youth homelessness and its causes should be 
        heightened to better coordinate current programs with the many families, 
        businesses, law enforcement agencies, schools, and community and faith-
        based organizations working to help youth remain off the streets; and
Whereas November would be an appropriate month to recognize as National Homeless 
        Youth Awareness Month: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports helping vulnerable youth through current programs 
        authorized under title IV of the Social Security Act;
            (2) encourages the promotion through such programs of assistance for 
        especially foster youth in staying off the streets, staying in school, 
        and obtaining their high school diplomas and further education and 
        training;
            (3) applauds the initiative of public and private organizations and 
        individuals dedicated to helping these programs prevent homelessness 
        among youth, and provide aid when prevention fails; and
            (4) should recognize ``National Homeless Youth Awareness Month'' to 
        support and further encourage such efforts.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: pierce_cs@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:15:34 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,

Christine Pierce

Prescott Valley, AZ 86314
From: jhalberg@concretetools.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:38:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

As a business owner and provider of employee medical insurance, I am writing today to ask that you

rescind the mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health

insurance. 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,

Julie Halberg

Grand Junction, CO 81507
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 13, 2018

t0911

Order 

Clerk

September 13, 2018

158326 & (11)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158326

COA: 344983 

JEFFREY ALAN STOLTZ, Kent CC: 18-003731-FH

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.