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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                    OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                                  8,996
<SECURITIES>                                                           19,865
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          21,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            1,686
<INVENTORY>                                                               506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       52,454
<PP&E>                                                                 15,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         10,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         66,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  20,634
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                                   12
<OTHER-SE>                                                             45,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           66,799
<SALES>                                                                74,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       74,356
<CGS>                                                                  15,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          15,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       52,984
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                         6,708
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            2,198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     4,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            4,510
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            0.75



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 2, 2008.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas**                     (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

*1. Michael Scott Anderson*, Dallas, Texas, to acquire voting shares of FVNB Corp., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Victoria National Bank, both of Victoria, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 13, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-19079 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BCSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for
the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: February 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Joseph J. Bouffard               
|                        |  | Joseph J. Bouffard                   
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|Date: February 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Anthony R. Cole                  
|                        |  | Anthony R. Cole                      
|                        |  | Executive Vice President and         
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Holona Corrine ROMERO, Appellant.

No. 02-3689.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Holona Corrine Romero was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation. In a search of the car, police found three stolen shotguns. The driver pleaded guilty to possessing stolen firearms. At Romero’s trial on the same charge, the driver testified against her. Romero also testified and admitted that she, not the driver, had the connections to the others involved with the stolen guns, she had put one of the guns in the car, and she had told a police officer she knew there was “something wrong” with the guns. A jury found Romero guilty.

Romero appeals asserting the district court* abused its discretion in excluding certain testimony. Specifically, Rome*914ro asserts she should have been permitted to cross-examine the driver about his uncharged thefts of items from parked cars when he was a juvenile. Romero contends the evidence was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), which gives the court discretion to allow impeachment of a witness by cross-examination about specific instances of conduct not resulting in conviction if the conduct relates to the witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. We conclude any error in excluding the evidence was harmless. The jury already knew the driver had been convicted of possessing stolen firearms and used illegal drugs, and was testifying as a cooperating witness to obtain a reduced sentence under his plea agreement. And, given Romero’s own admissions, the case against her was strong.

Romero also contends a hearsay statement by Romero’s cousin, Ben Young, to Romero’s uncle was admissible under the residual hearsay exception, formerly Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5), now renumbered Rule 807. In an offer of proof, Romero’s uncle stated Young told him Romero didn’t know what was going on with the guns. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit the statement under Rule 807 because the statement did not have the necessary circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. *United States v. Collins,*66 F.3d 984, 986-87 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

We thus affirm Romero’s conviction.

*

 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
## 1994 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-12-1994 

# M i l le r v . C i g n a C or p or a t ion

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ock e t 93-1773

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1994

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1994 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" M i l le r v . C i gn a C or por a t ion " (1994). 1994 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 108. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1994/108

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________ NO. 93-1773

_______________
WILLIAM J. MILLER, Appellant

v. CIGNA CORPORATION; THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

_______________ Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge , BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS and McKEE, Circuit Judges
.

O R D E R

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing in banc in the above appeal, it is O R D E R E D that the Clerk of this Court vacate the panel's opinion and judgment filed June 28, 1994, and list the above case for rehearing in banc at the convenience of the court. By the Court,
/s/ Dolores K. Sloviter Chief Judge
Dated:August 12, l994
#### Floyd Clayton FORSBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 72-2168.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 24, 1972.

Floyd Clayton Forsberg, in pro. per.

Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Michael L. Morehouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Ore., for respondent-appellee.

Before MERRILL, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by a federal prisoner from the denial of a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Appellant claims that his plea of guilty was void because a requested and ordered psychiatric examination was never held. He also contends that he was not adequately admonished as to the consequences of his plea as required by F.R.Cr.P. 11.

His contentions are without merit.

The petitioner filed an earlier 2255 motion which was denied upon the merits. The instant one was denied as a mere duplication of the first. Petitioner in several letters written to the Dis*1084trict Court Judge admitted that the claimed deprivation of the psychiatric examination was merely a device to enable the judge to vacate petitioner’s original sentence and impose a lower one based on prison rehabilitation. The District Court properly refused to utilize 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for such a purpose. United States v. Marchese, 341 F.2d 782, 788 (9th Cir. 1965).

We agree that the first motion was frivolous as was that portion of the second motion which was repetition.

One claim newly asserted in the second petition — failure to comply with F.R.Cr.P. 11 in accepting the guilty plea ■ — is without merit. The transcript of the proceeding shows full compliance. Williams v. United States, 466 F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1972).

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,284,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,217,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        649,632
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           264
<OTHER-SE>                                     381,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,217,413
<SALES>                                        173,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,848
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,745
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,745
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       45,745
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65


</TABLE>
Exhibit








INTERDIGITAL, INC.


Compensation Program for Non-Management Directors


	
		
	Base Annual Board Retainer:
	$50,000

	Chairman of the Board:
	$50,000

	Audit Committee Chair:
	$30,000

	Compensation Committee Chair:
	$20,000

	Investment Committee Chair:
	$15,000

	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair:
	$15,000

	Audit Committee Members:
	$12,000

	Compensation Committee Members:
	$10,000

	Investment Committee Members:
	$7,500

	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Members:
	$7,500

	Initial Election RSU Award:
	$150,000 of RSUs (vesting in full one year from grant date)

	Annual RSU Award:
	$175,000 of RSUs (vesting in full one year from grant date)






		
	•
	All cash payments and RSU grants shall be based on service for a full year; pro rata payments and grants shall be made for service of less than one year.  Cash payments shall be made on a quarterly basis.




		
	•
	This program is designed to compensate each non-management director for participating in up to eight (8) Board meetings per year and up to eight (8) meetings per year for each Committee on which the non-management director serves.  Additional compensation will be paid to each non-management director for participating in meetings in excess of these thresholds, as follows:




		
	o
	Each additional Board meeting:        $4,000


		
	o
	Each additional Committee meeting:        $1,000




		
	•
	In addition, non-management directors will be paid a per diem fee of $1,000 for attendance at or participation in events, conferences or meetings, in their capacity as a director, at the request of InterDigital, Inc. senior management, provided that such attendance or participation requires a significant time commitment and would be considered outside of the director’s typical Board and/or Committee duties.  Any per diem fee payments will be subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.




		
	•
	Both cash payments and RSUs may be deferred.  An election to defer must be made in the calendar year preceding the year in which services are rendered and the compensation is earned (i.e., elections to defer must be made by December 31 of each year for the deferral to apply to the next year’s cash payments and/or RSU award(s)).




		
	•
	Each initial election RSU award shall be granted on the date of the director’s initial election to the Board.  Annual RSU awards shall be granted on the date of each Annual Meeting of Shareholders.  




		
	•
	The number of RSUs to be granted pursuant to each initial election award and annual award shall be calculated as follows:




$175,000 / (the closing stock price on the day of grant) = number of RSUs to be granted


		
	•
	The terms of this program shall be periodically reviewed by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.






June 2019


1
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.19A 
Schedule of Named Executive Officers Party to Change of Control Employment Agreement (BE4 and Higher Version without gross-up or window period - 2015 version) 
(As of December 31, 2019) 
John D. Buchanan
Peter L. Sefzik
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,770,139
<SECURITIES>                                 6,696,105
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,916,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (341,343)
<INVENTORY>                                 21,417,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,097,802
<PP&E>                                      15,153,881
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,769,230)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,861,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,142,293
<BONDS>                                         50,083
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    26,000,480
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,668,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,861,748
<SALES>                                    105,028,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           105,028,976
<CGS>                                       59,521,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,401,191
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               100,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                86,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (232,753)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,619,456
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,982,295
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,637,161
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,637,161
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49


</TABLE>
#### John Magness v. State

No. 25617.

January 9, 1952.

Hon. Joe D. Huffstutler, Judge Presiding.

*Doyle Pevehouse,*Corsicana, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

A search of appellant’s home, in an admittedly dry area, resulted in the finding of thirty-four 12 ounce cans of beer in a closet and 4 cans in the ice box.

Appellant and his wife testified they had the beer for their own use and not for sale, but the jury resolved the issue as to the purpose of its possession against appellant.

Under the prima facie evidence statute, Art. 667, Sec. 25(b), Vernon’s Ann, P.C., which was given in the charge, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.

Appellant excepted to the charge because the court failed to instruct the jury that the information filed against him was no evidence of his guilt, and prepared a charge upon the subject which was refused.

*574Though the trial court might well have given the requested charge, we are unable to agree that his failure to do so was prejudicial to the rights of appellant. See Adams v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 501, 21 SW(2) 1057.

Appellant, in his brief, urges that error is shown in the admission of certain testimony of C. E. Hahn regarding the number of the telephone and car license of appellant. We find no bill of exception addressed to the testimony of this witness which is in narrative form in the statement of facts.

Other exceptions to the court’s charge have been examined and no reversible error is found.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
| Subsidiaries                             |   | State or other jurisdiction ofincorporationor organization |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |   |                                                                                |
| InterActual      Technologies, Inc.      |   | California,      USA                                                                |
| Sonic      IP, Inc.                      |   | California,      USA                                                                |
| Sonic      Solutions International, Inc. |   | Delaware                                                                            |
| MGI      Software Corp.                  |   | Canada                                                                              |
| Live      Picture S.A.R.L.               |   | France                                                                              |
| OLI      V R Corporation Ltd.            |   | Israel                                                                              |
| Sonic      Solutions K. K.               |   | Japan                                                                               |
| Sonic      Solutions (Shanghai) Co., Ltd |   | PRC      (China)                                                                    |
| SystemOK      AB                         |   | Sweden                                                                              |
| Roxio      UK, Ltd.                      |   | United      Kingdom                                                                 |
| Roxio      Singapore PTE Ltd.            |   | Singapore                                                                           |

----