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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:06:10 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,

Carol Napoli

New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169
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.  229				Trade Date: 10/24/02
(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 & 

  Prospectus dated August 8,2002)					Issue Date:  10/29/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement October 28, 2002
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)

14911QKN0  3.00%	10/15/05	     100%	        0.625%                Semi Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$1,726,000.00	$1,715,212.50	ABN AMRO Inc.	   04/15/03		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, $8.173 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            70,356
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     10,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       16,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 112,227
<PP&E>                                           734,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                   161,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   750,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             86,878
<BONDS>                                              716
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             753
<OTHER-SE>                                       653,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     750,933
<SALES>                                        1,162,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,173,810
<CGS>                                            443,516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    967,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,919
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  139,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                      49,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               89,551
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      89,551
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.16


</TABLE>
From: myjnycia@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42:43 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,

Miroslaw Klapyk

Willimantic, CT 06226
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Delroy McKenzie, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 67]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Failla, J., at hearing; Budd Goodman, J., at trial), rendered November 6, 1992, convicting defendant after a jury trial, of four counts of attempted robbery in the first degree and five counts of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years on two of the first degree attempted robbery counts to run consecutively to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years on the other two first degree attempted robbery counts and concurrently with concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years on the second degree attempted robbery counts, unanimously affirmed.

We find no basis to disturb the motion court’s findings that these prompt on-the-scene investigatory showups were not rendered unduly suggestive because defendant was handcuffed, or unnecessary because of a prior, equivocal, spontaneous identification (see, *People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541, 543; *People v Matthews,*199 AD2d 59, *Iv denied*82 NY2d 927; *People v Lawhorn,*199 AD2d 123, *Iv denied*83 NY2d 855). The existence of a prior, spontaneous identification in a "fast-moving, uninterrupted array of activity” should not preclude a second, police-arranged identification if necessary to the "objective that the police have reasonable assurances that they have arrested or detained the right person” *(People v Duuvon, supra,*at 545). Defendant’s contentions concerning lighting raised a factual dispute to be resolved by the fact-finder. Since police raised the suspects’ hoods at the request of the complainants as an aid to identification, rather than as a police device to prompt an identification, no suggestiveness inhered in this procedure.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.
Before the Third Division,

December 30, 1953

No. 57728.

protest 191104-K (Philadelphia).

#### Logansport Distilling Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From the testimony it appeared that duty and internal revenue taxes were assessed on the quantity found broken due to repacking in bonded warehouse before the withdrawal of the merchandise; that the quantity broken or lost consisted of 291 bottles, or 58.2 gallons, which, at $9 per gallon, resulted in an internal revenue tax of $523.80, which amount was refunded; and that no corresponding refund in the duty taken on the said 58.2 gallons was made. For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: cordleih@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:20:38 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,

Cordell Leih

Olga, WA 98279
NO. 07-08 -018 3-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA Y30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ MA RY L. RE Y ES, Appel lan t v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 th DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO. 200 6-41 300 9; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL , PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Ord er o f Di smissal

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Mary L. Reyes, appe llant, a ttem pts to app eal he r c o n vic tion for driv ing w hile int ox ic ated w it h a pass eng er under fifteen years o f age
. The cour t i mposed sent ence on Janua ry 18, 2008. Ap pel lan t t hen fil ed a moti on for new tr ial on Febr uar

y 14, 2008. H er noti ce of appeal was filed on A pr il 18, 2008. W e di smi ss for want o f jur is dicti on. T o be timely, a notice of app eal must be f iled w ithin 30 days af ter the sente nce is impos ed or

su spend ed in open courtor w it hin 90 days after that date if a moti on for newT he a ppr opr i at e v ehi cl e f orseeki ng a n ou t - of - t i m e ap peal fr om a f i nal fe l onyconvi ct i on i s bywr i t of 1 h a b e a s c o r p u s p u rs u a n t t o A rti c l e 1 1 .0 7 o f th e T e x a s C o d e o f C rim i n a l P ro c e d u re . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art . 11 . 07 (Ve rno n 2 00 5). 2 tr ial i s fil ed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26. 2(a). Am otion for n ew trial h aving bee n f iled, ap pellan t's noti ce of appeal was due t o be filed on or before A pr il 17, 2008. Appel lan t’ s a ttor ney was noti fied by

thi s c our

t on Ma y 16, 20 0 8 , that the n oti ce of appeal appears u nti mely and direct ed hi m to fil e any doc uments or

matte rsco nsi d e re d nec ess ar y for t hisco urt t o deter mine it s appel lat e jur is dicti on. These document s w ere to be fil ed no lat er than M ay 27, 2 008. N o doc uments or respon se hav e been re cei v ed by the cour t t o dat e. A ti mely filed noti ce of ap peal is ess enti al to invoke our appel lat e jur is dicti on. Olivo v. Sta te , 918 S.W .2d 5 19, 5 22 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996)
. If iti s u nti mely , we c an ta ke no act ion othe r than to di smi ss the proceed ing . Id . at 52 3. App ellant 's notice b eing untim ely f iled, w e ha v e no jurisdiction over the ma tter an d dism iss the ap pea l. Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s a ppeal i s d is mis sed. 1
Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e Do not p ubl is h.
Case No. 14,794.

#### UNITED STATES v. CINQUE.

[Nowhere repotted: opinion not now accessible.] _
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

MILDRED MILLER,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

CENTER for DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING,

INC., et al.,

 Defendant.

 C05-1495 RSL

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C05-1495 RSL and

bear the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 23rd day of November, 2005

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01495-RSL Document 15 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 64528.

#### Bilt Rite Baby Carriage Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/11281, 59/7254, and 59/16876 (New York).

*261Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of ribbon similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), except that the merchandise herein is velvet pile ribbon, wholly or in chief value of cotton, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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



I,
Weitao Wang, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



|(1) | the
    Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Eternity Healthcare Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2017 (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 Eternity Healthcare Inc.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:
 January 3, 2018





| |  | /s/ Weitao Wang                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Weitao Wang                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | President,
Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial
Officer
                                                       (Principal Executive Officer,
                                                       Principal Financial Officer and  Principal Accounting Officer)
| |  | Eternity Healthcare Inc.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to Eternity Healthcare Inc. and will be retained by Eternity Healthcare Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

REGINALD BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENNIS LEE, et al.

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0004-RSM

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In January 2006, plaintiff Reginald Bell presented to this Court for review a series of

documents indicating his intent to pursue a civil rights action in this Court. Among the documents

submitted by plaintiff were a document entitled “Complaint,” and a document entitled “Form to

be Used by a Prisoner in Filing a Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Both

documents identified defendants and set forth claims for relief.

On February 27, 2006, this Court issued an Order in which it advised plaintiff that because

he had presented multiple pleadings in this action, and because his claims were confusing, the

Court would not order service of the complaint on defendants. The Court further advised plaintiff

that if he wished to pursue this action, he must first file a single complaint which clearly and

Case 2:06-cv-00004-RSM Document 16 Filed 06/20/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

concisely set forth his constitutional claims and the facts supporting those claims. Plaintiff was

granted thirty days within which to file his amended complaint, and was advised that his failure

timely file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation from this Court that the

instant action be dismissed, with prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Plaintiff subsequently moved for an extension of time to file his amended complaint. (Dkt.

No. 14.) The Court granted plaintiff’s motion and directed him to file his amended complaint not

later than May 15, 2006. (Dkt. No. 15.) To date plaintiff has filed no amended complaint.

Because plaintiff has not timely filed an amended complaint which clearly and concisely sets forth

his claims for relief, this Court recommends that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00004-RSM Document 16 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2