alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

|                                   |                                                           | Years ended December 31, |       
|---------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ------
|
|
|Earnings:                          |                                                           |                          |       
|                                   | Pretax income from continuing operations                  |                          | $     
|                                   | Equity (earnings) losses from equity investee             |                          |       
|                                   | Fixed charges                                             |                          |       
|                                   | Distributed income of equity investee                     |                          |       
|                                   | Capitalized interest                                      |                          |       
|                                   |                                                           |                          |       
|Total earnings                     |                                                           | $                        | 67,407
|                                   |                                                           |                          |       
|Fixed charges:                     |                                                           |                          |       
|                                   | Interest expense                                          |                          | $     
|                                   | Estimated interest expense within operating lease expense |                          |       
|                                   | Capitalized interest                                      |                          |       
|                                   |                                                           |                          |       
|Total fixed charges                |                                                           | $                        | 28,150
|                                   |                                                           |                          |       
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |                                                           |                          | 2.39  
|                                   |                                                           |                          |       

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.12

 

Axcelis Technologies, Inc.

Named Executive Officer Base Compensation at March 11, 2015

 

This Exhibit discloses the current understandings with respect to base compensation between Axcelis Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) and each of:

 

·                  the Company’s principal executive officer (Mary G. Puma),

 

·                  the Company’s principal financial officer (Kevin J. Brewer), and

 

·                  the three most highly compensated other executive officers serving as executive officers at December 31, 2014.

 

These executive officers are referred to herein as “named executive officers” or “NEOs.”

 

Mary G. Puma and the Company have entered into a written agreement addressing a minimum level of base salary due to the executive. The Company’s Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Ms. Puma (“Puma Employment Agreement”) is listed as an Exhibit to this Form 10-K.  Each of the other NEOs and the Company have entered into an Executive Separation Pay Agreement dated as of March 5, 2015 in which a termination without cause will entitle the executive to year of separation pay.  The form of Executive Separation Pay Agreement is listed as an Exhibit to this Form 10-K.

 

The Company maintains that all executive officers, other than Ms. Puma, are employees at will and that the Company has no obligation to continue their employment, other in cases where such obligation arises under the Change of Control Agreements described in our Proxy Statement and filed as an Exhibit to this Form 10-K.

 

Rate of Base Pay

 

In the course of the employment relationship with each NEO, the Company communicates to the named executive officer the amount of base salary approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, which compensation is subject to change in the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (provided Ms. Puma’s employment agreement sets a minimum base pay amount). The following table sets forth the annual base salary as communicated to the named executive officers of the Company as in effect on March 11, 2015:

 

	
Named Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
Title
    	
 
    	
Rate of Annual
    Base Pay
    	
 
    
	
Mary G. Puma 
    	
 
    	
President   and Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
550,000
    	
 
    
	
Kevin J. Brewer 
    	
 
    	
Executive   VP and Chief Financial Officer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
350,000
    	
 
    
	
William Bintz 
    	
 
    	
Executive   VP, Engineering and Marketing
    	
 
    	
$
    	
330,000
    	
 
    
	
John E. Aldeborgh 
    	
 
    	
Executive   VP, Global Customer Operations
    	
 
    	
$
    	
330,000
    	
 
    
	
Lynnette C. Fallon 
    	
 
    	
Executive   VP HR/Legal and General Counsel
    	
 
    	
$
    	
320,000
    	
 
    


 

1
exh_1020.htm



Exhibit 10.20





 





Director Compensation Arrangements










Compensation of Non-Employee Directors Upon Initial Election to the Board


 





Each non-employee director will be entitled to receive a non-qualified stock option having an aggregate Black-Scholes cash value of $120,000, rounded to the nearest 100 shares, provided that in no case shall such stock option be less than 25,000 shares (so long as 25,000 shares are required to be granted under the equity incentive plan of the Corporation).  Such option shall be for the purchase of common stock of the Corporation and shall vest annually over three years and be granted on the fifth business day following his or her initial election to the Board.





 


Annual Compensation of Non-Employee Directors


 





Each non-employee director will be entitled to receive an annual retainer in the amount of $35,000 paid in four equal quarterly installments. The Chairman will also be entitled to receive an additional annual retainer of $35,000 paid in four equal quarterly installments. Each non-employee director member of the Audit Committee will be entitled to receive an additional annual retainer of $9,000 paid in four equal quarterly installments. Each non-employee director member of the Compensation Committee will be entitled to receive an additional annual retainer of $6,000 paid in four equal quarterly installments. Each non-employee member of the Governance Committee will be entitled to receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000 paid in four equal quarterly installments. The Committee Chairman of the Audit Committee will be entitled to receive an additional annual retainer of $18,000 paid in four equal quarterly installments.  The Committee Chairman of the Compensation Committee will be entitled to receive an additional annual retainer of $12,000 paid in four equal quarterly installments.  The Committee Chairman of the Governance Committee will be entitled to receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000 paid in four equal quarterly installments.  Each non-employee director will also be entitled to receive an equity award having an aggregate cash value of $80,000, rounded to the nearest 100 shares, vesting fully one year from the date of grant and granted on the fifth business day following the Corporation’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders, with such award to be evidenced by a grant of deferred stock awards of restricted stock units.  In addition, non-employee directors shall be reimbursed for their expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and Committee meetings.
#### In the Matter of Messiah T. and Another, Infants. Karen S., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 344]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about August 16, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, brings up for review a fact-finding determination that respondent mother had neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that respondent neglected the children by failing to provide proper supervision or guardianship *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Indeed, respondent admitted that she had left the children in the care of their maternal grandmother, who had a history of drug addiction, and her ex-boyfriend, who had a history of drug abuse and domestic violence, and was on parole for drug possession *(see Matter of Victor V.,*261 AD2d 479, 479-480 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 819 [1999]; *Matter of Synovia G.,*163 AD2d 257 [1990]). In addition, respondent acknowledged that she was a recreational drug user and admitted testing positive for narcotics. Although respondent was enrolled in a drug treatment program, the record shows that she tested positive for drug use while participating in the program, thereby establishing imminent risk to the children’s physical, mental and emotional condition *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; *Matter of Keira O.,*44 AD3d 668, 670-671 [2007]). The finding of neglect is also supported by evidence that respondent was aggressive with petitioner’s staff, and had failed to continue treatment for her mental illness despite suicidal thoughts *(see Matter of Kayla W.,*47 AD3d 571, 572 [2008]; *Matter of Caress S.,*250 AD2d 490 [1998]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### Chrysanthe Petras, Respondent, v Neoptolemos Cleopa, Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action, defendant husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated April 20, 1984, as amended September 11,1984, as awarded sole custody of the parties’ child to plaintiff wife and restricted defendant’s visitation to the custodial residence until the child reaches the age of three and one-half years and further determined that said child’s name was Peter Neo Petras Cleopa and that plaintiff may make application to amend the birth certificate to reflect that name.

Judgment, as amended, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the child was only approximately eight months old at the time of trial, and the parties had separated before the baby’s birth, the trial court did not err in restricting visitation until the child is somewhat older. This was not an appropriate situation for an award of joint custody, given the very young age of the child and the parties’, particularly the father’s, inability to reach agreement upon simple decisions involving the child, such as his name *(see, e.g., Braiman v Braiman,*44 NY2d 584, 589-590; *Salamone v Salamone,*83 AD2d 778, 779). Finally, the court properly directed that the child’s name on the birth certificate could be amended to Peter Neo Petras Cleopa, which includes both middle names preferred by the father and mother, respectively. Moflen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.
[Nos. 36743-9-I; 36744-7-I; 36745-5-I; 36746-3-I.

Division One.

August 4, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Dependency*of M.I.S., M.S., N.S., M.R.S. A.S., et al, *Appellants,*v. The Department of Social & Health Services, *Respondent.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, Nos. 94-7-01073-3, 94-7-01074-1, 94-7-01075-0 and 94-7-01076-8, Deborah Fleck, J., entered May 4, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Grosse and Webster, JJ.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 421 

To amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to require 

the Secretary of Energy to provide grants for lithium production research 

and development. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2011 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 to require the Secretary of Energy to provide 

grants for lithium production research and development. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Powering America’s 

5 Lithium Production Act of 2011’’. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 421 IS

1 SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR LITHIUM PRODUCTION RESEARCH 

2 AND DEVELOPMENT. 

3 Subtitle E of title VI of the Energy Independence and 

4 Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17241 et seq.) is amend5 ed by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 657. GRANTS FOR LITHIUM PRODUCTION RESEARCH 

7 AND DEVELOPMENT. 

8 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—In this sec9 tion, the term ‘eligible entity’ means— 

10 ‘‘(1) a private partnership or other entity that 

11 is— 

12 ‘‘(A) organized in accordance with Federal 

13 law; and 

14 ‘‘(B) engaged in lithium production for use 

15 in advanced battery technologies; 

16 ‘‘(2) a public entity, such as a State, tribal, or 

17 local governmental entity; or 

18 ‘‘(3) a consortium of entities described in para19 graphs (1) and (2). 

20 ‘‘(b) GRANTS.—The Secretary shall provide grants to 

21 eligible entities for research, development, demonstration, 

22 and commercial application of domestic industrial proc23 esses that are designed to enhance domestic lithium pro24 duction for use in advanced battery technologies, as deter25 mined by the Secretary. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 421 IS

1 ‘‘(c) USE.—An eligible entity shall use a grant pro2 vided under this subsection to develop or enhance— 

3 ‘‘(1) domestic industrial processes that increase 

4 lithium production, processing, or recycling for use 

5 in advanced lithium batteries; or 

6 ‘‘(2) industrial process associated with new for7 mulations of lithium feedstock for use in advanced 

8 lithium batteries. 

9 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

10 are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

11 out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 

12 through 2014.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

      ( print page 35540)    
The National Science Board's Committee on Awards & Facilities hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business as follows:

# TIME AND DATE:

 Friday, July 9, 2021, from 12-1 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE:

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS:

 Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 The agenda of the teleconference is: Committee Chair's Opening Remarks; Update on the National Science Foundation's Antarctic research infrastructure; and Committee Chair's Closing Remarks.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                         Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair,                         *cblair@nsf.gov,*                         703/292-7000. To listen to this teleconference, members of the public must send an email to                         *nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov*                         at least 24 hours prior to the teleconference. The National Science Board Office will send requesters a toll-free dial-in number. Meeting information and updates may be found at the National Science Board website                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb.*

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2021-14479 Filed 7-1-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James Hennen, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ James
 Hennen       
| | James Hennen            
| | Chief
 Financial Officer
| | October 20,
 2009       

---
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 Annual Report of COUNTRYSIDE REVIEW INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Doug Berry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2004.

| | /s/ Doug Berry
Doug Berry
Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------









---
**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**

|   | (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                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                         |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Reed                    Fisher      |   |   |        |
| Reed                    Fisher               |   |   |        |
| Chief                      Executive Officer |   |   |   |
|                                         |   |   |   |
| April                      26, 2006          |   |   |   |
#### Victor G. BAXTER, Petitioner-Appellant v. W.A. SHERROD, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Pollock, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-30194

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 16, 2011.

Victor G. Baxter, Pollock, LA, pro se.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In 2003, a jury found Victor G. Baxter, federal prisoner # 26713-004, guilty of one count of distributing five grams or more of crack and one count of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, and he received concurrent 360-month prison terms. He was found to be a career offender and his sentence was enhanced in part on the basis of a trio of 1999 guilty plea convictions in state court for drug offenses for which he received a 174-day prison sentence. He moves this court for a certifí-cate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s decision to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Baxter’s § 2254 claim on the basis that Baxter was no longer in custody on that conviction. Baxter does not address this issue in his brief to this court; accordingly, he has abandoned it, and it will not be considered. *See Hughes v. Johnson,*191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999).

As for Baxter’s claims brought under § 2241, he is not required to obtain a COA before appealing the district court’s decision. *See Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir.2005). Because the issue of whether the district court erred in dismissing the § 2241 application is resolved by Baxter’s submissions to this court and the record, further briefing is unnecessary. *See Clark v. Williams,*693 F.2d 381, 381-82 (5th Cir.1982).

Baxter contends that he was actually innocent of being a career offender when he was sentenced in his federal case. However, a claim of actual innocence of a career offender enhancement is not a claim of actual innocence of the offense of conviction and thus does not fall within the savings clause of § 2255(e) and is not cogniza-

*258ble under § 2241. *Kinder v. Purdy,*222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir.2000); *see also Padilla,*416 F.3d at 426-27 (holding that a challenge to the validity of an enhanced sentence did not fall under the § 2255 savings clause).

Accordingly, Baxter’s motion for a COA regarding his § 2254 petition is DENIED. His motion for a COA regarding his § 2241 application is DENIED as unnecessary. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.