alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000855932
<NAME> FINANCIAL BANCORP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,603,668
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    701,750
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      45,010,382
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        44,058,000
<LOANS>                                    145,481,700
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,320,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             259,103,482
<DEPOSITS>                                 203,499,815
<SHORT-TERM>                                27,006,668
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,967,716
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,850
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,736,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             259,103,982
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,899,293
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,997,391
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                15,789
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,912,473
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,981,214
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             476,765
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,454,494
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   99,600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              26,353
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,384,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,110,413
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     593,439
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   593,439
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.63
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,951,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   180,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               922,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,573,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,000
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,672,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,672,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,165,000
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MYRON SLAUGHTER, a/k/a Wink,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,

District Judge. (CR-01-69; CA-04-97-4)

Submitted: February 18, 2005 Decided: March 10, 2005

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Myron Slaughter, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant

United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Myron Slaughter seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Slaughter has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Unassociated Document


    
      

    


    


    Exhibit
      10.28

    


    


    November
      22,
      2006

    


    


    Dear
      John,

    


    On
      behalf of the
      Board of Directors and the shareholders of Anheuser-Busch, I want to thank
      you
      for your valuable service to the Company. In recognition of your dedicated
      service, the Company will transfer the title to your current Company car to
      you,
      on or before December 31, 2007;

    


    


    Sincerely,

    


    


    


    
      /s/
        Vernon R.
        Loucks
        Jr.                                                     


    

    Vernon
      R. Loucks
      Jr.

    Chairman,
      Compensation Committee, Board of Directors

    Anheuser-Busch
      Companies, Inc.
§ 1.856-9 Treatment of certain qualified REIT subsidiaries. ( a ) *In general.* A qualified REIT subsidiary, even though it is otherwise not treated as a corporation separate from the REIT, is treated as a separate corporation for purposes of: ( 1 ) Federal tax liabilities of the qualified REIT subsidiary with respect to any taxable period for which the qualified REIT subsidiary was treated as a separate corporation.
( 2 ) Federal tax liabilities of any other entity for which the qualified REIT subsidiary is liable.
( 3 ) Refunds or credits of Federal tax.
( b ) *Examples.* The following examples illustrate the application of paragraph (a) of this section: Example 1. X, a calendar year taxpayer, is a domestic corporation 100 percent of the stock of which is acquired by Y, a real estate investment trust, in 2002. X was not a member of a consolidated group at any time during its taxable year ending in December 2001. Consequently, X is treated as a qualified REIT subsidiary under the provisions of section 856(i) for 2002 and later periods. In 2004, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeks to extend the period of limitations on assessment for X's 2001 taxable year. Because X was treated as a separate corporation for its 2001 taxable year, X is the proper party to sign the consent to extend the period of limitations.
Example 2. The facts are the same as in *Example 1*, except that upon Y's acquisition of X, Y and X jointly elect under section 856(l) to treat X as a taxable REIT subsidiary of Y. In 2003, Y and X jointly revoke that election. Consequently, X is treated as a qualified REIT subsidiary under the provisions of section 856(i) for 2003 and later periods. In 2004, the IRS determines that X miscalculated and underreported its income tax liability for 2001. Because X was treated as a separate corporation for its 2001 taxable year, the deficiency may be assessed against X and, in the event that X fails to pay the liability after notice and demand, a general tax lien will arise against all of X's property and rights to property.
Example 3. X is a qualified REIT subsidiary of Y under the provisions of section 856(i). In 2001, Z, a domestic corporation that reports its taxes on a calendar year basis, merges into X in a state law merger. Z was not a member of a consolidated group at any time during its taxable year ending in December 2000. Under the applicable state law, X is the successor to Z and is liable for all of Z's debts. In 2004, the IRS seeks to extend the period of limitations on assessment for Z's 2000 taxable year. Because X is the successor to Z and is liable for Z's 2000 taxes that remain unpaid, X is the proper party to sign the consent to extend the period of limitations.
( c ) *Effective date.* This section applies on or after April 1, 2004.
[T.D. 9183, 70 FR 9221, Feb. 25, 2005]
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent exce pt under t he limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.l Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________ No. 97-31320

______________________ DONN FORD; CARLEE GERALD; KERRY THOMAS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus PENNZOIL, ET AL,
Defendants,
SPIDER STAGING CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES,
Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans

(94-CV-3948-I)

___________________________________________________________________ November 5, 1999

Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. Rule 47.6. (The motion to strike Appellants’

substitute brief is DENIED

. Judge Barksdale would have granted the motion and,

in addition, would have required Appellants’ counsel to show cause why sanctions

should not be imposed against him in the light of the numerous substantive changes

ma de by counsel in preparing the substitute brief. Along this line, Appellants’2

counsel is warned that sanctions will be imposed against him if, in the future, he
engages in conduct similar to that challenged by the motion to strike.)
exv10w44



 






EXHIBIT 10.44




February 26, 2007




Steve Capelli

President, WWFO

(Delivered by hand)



Dear Steve:



This is to inform you of your 2007 compensation as approved by the Sybase, Inc. Compensation
Committee:





	 	1.	 	Cash Compensation (effective January 1, 2007)






	 	1.	 	Annual base salary: $415,800
	 
	 	2.	 	Incentive bonus target: $336,798
	 
	 	3.	 	Total target cash compensation (TTC): $752,598




You will receive shortly your 2007 Variable Compensation Plan Document with the details of your
quota and plan components.





	 	2.	 	Long-Term Incentives






	 	(a)	 	Sybase Stock Option Grant (4-year vest)






	 	•	 	18,500 options






	 	(b)	 	Restricted Stock Grant (performance vest)






	 	•	 	15,300 shares






	 	(c)	 	Restricted Stock Grant (time vest)






	 	•	 	8,200 shares




The vesting terms are set out in the relevant equity award grant agreement.



I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions in 2006. I look forward
to your support and contributions in 2007.




Sincerely,




	 	 	 
	/s/ John S. Chen

	 	 
	John S. Chen
	 	 
	Chairman, CEO and President
	 	 






CC: HR File
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. 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 CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51155 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FERNANDO MALLEN-DE LUNA, also known as Tomas Salais-Diaz Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-166-ALL
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Fernando Mallen-De Luna raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 2, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51155

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 2 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 2

   Expressing the sense of the Congress that retirement benefits for 
      Members of Congress should not be subject to cost-of-living 
                              adjustments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Coble submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and, in 
   addition, to the Committee on House Oversight, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that retirement benefits for 
      Members of Congress should not be subject to cost-of-living 
                              adjustments.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that retirement benefits should 
not, to the extent that they are based on the service of an individual 
as a Member of Congress, be subject to cost-of-living adjustments.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1



Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform
and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Bing Yeh, the President
and Chief Executive Officer of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Periodic Report"),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and
2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered
by the Periodic Report.

Dated: November 13, 2002.







| |                                                                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: /s/ BING YEH

                                    Bing Yeh
President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18879]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD


Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) 
Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, 
Washington, DC 20004-2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at 
(202) 694-7041 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#43272621212a262103272d2530216d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94f0f1f6f6fdf1f6d4f0faf2e7f6baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5) requires 
each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review 
boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of 
the senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the 
higher level official's comments on the initial summary rating. In 
addition, the PRB will review and recommend executive performance 
bonuses and pay increases.
    The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the 
members of the DNFSB SES Performance Review Board listed in this notice 
are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies. The following persons 
comprise a standing roster to serve as members of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board SES Performance Review Board:

Christopher E. Aiello, Director of Human Resources, Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation
David M. Capozzi, Director of Technical and Information Services, 
United States Access Board
DeDe Greene, Executive Officer, Civil Rights Division, Department of 
Justice
Raymond Limon, Chief Human Capital Officer, Corporation for National & 
Community Service
Christopher W. Warner, General Counsel, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board.

    Dated: July 30, 2009.
Brian Grosner,
Chairman, Executive Resources Board.
[FR Doc. E9-18879 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2287

SALIL V. DESAI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CA-03-93)

Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Salil V. Desai, Appellant Pro Se. Dino Lucio Trubiano, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Salil V. Desai appeals the district court’s order

affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying

Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income

benefits. We must uphold the district court’s disability

determination if the decision is supported by substantial evidence

and the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000);

Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Desai v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. CA03-93 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2004). 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
Exhibit
10.27


BUNGE LIMITED BOARD OF
DIRECTORS


DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’

COMPENSATION

( Effective as of February 27, 2007)


Annual Retainer


·                                          $75,000 per
year.


Committee Chairman Fees


·                                          $20,000 per
year for Audit Committee chair.


·                                          $10,000 per year
for each other committee chair.


Committee Member Fees


·                                          $10,000 per
year for Audit Committee membership.


·                                          $0 per year
for each other committee membership.


Meeting Fees


·                                          If the Board
meets more than 10 times per year, each Director will receive a fee of $1,000
per day of meetings.


·                                          If a
committee meets more than 10 times per year, each committee member will receive
a fee of $1,000 per day of meetings.


Equity Awards


·                                          Pursuant to
the Bunge Limited Non-Employee Directors Equity Incentive Plan, each year on
the date of the Annual General Meeting, each continuing Director will be
granted an option to purchase 5,500 common shares of Bunge Limited.


·                                          Pursuant to
the Bunge Limited Non-Employee Directors Equity Incentive Plan, at the time of
appointment or election, each new Director will be granted an option to
purchase 7,500 common shares of Bunge Limited.


Deferral of Fees


·                                          Directors may
defer all or a portion of their fees under the Deferred Compensation Plan for
Non-Employee Directors.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of W.L.D. and * From the 91st District

D.T.D., children, Court of Eastland County,

 Trial Court No. CV-11-42,439.

No. 11-14-00111-CV * May 15, 2014

 * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal 

are taxed against Kelli Sue Bouget.