alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Westell Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their knowledge:



|(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 as of and for the
periods covered in the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Richard S. Gilbert 
|Richard S. Gilbert     
|Chief Executive Officer
|July 23, 2010          
|                       
|/s/ Brian S. Cooper    
|Brian S. Cooper        
|Chief Financial Officer
|July 23, 2010          

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 Westell Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Westell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed
as part of the Form 10-Q.



26
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 254 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 254

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
       for start-up expenditures for business for 2015 and 2016.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2015

  Mr. Honda introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
       for start-up expenditures for business for 2015 and 2016.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Support Our Startups Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR START-UP EXPENDITURES FOR 2015 AND 
              2016.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 195(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``2010'' in the matter preceding 
        subparagraph (A) and inserting ``2010, 2015, or 2016'', and
            (2) by striking ``2010'' in the heading and inserting 
        ``2010, 2015, or 2016''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:* National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA DK21-005 Immune Cell Engineering for Type 1 Diabetes.

*Date:* November 15-16, 2021.

*Time:* 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

*Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications.

*Place:* National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).

*Contact Person:* Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7119, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-594-2242, *jerkinsa@niddk.nih.gov*.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 10, 2021. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-19936 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Luz Martha GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70698.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed April 27, 2011.

Luz Martha Guzman, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.

*682Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Julia Tyler, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Luz Martha Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Guzman’s motion to reopen because she did not request any relief over which the BIA had jurisdiction. *See Matter of Yauri,*25 I. *&*N. Dec. 103, 110 (BIA 2009); *see also*8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1) (“USCIS has sole jurisdiction over all petitions for U nonimmigrant status.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s October 13, 2008, order dismissing Guzman’s appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal because she failed to timely petition this court for review of that order. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2607 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 7802 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, New 

York, as the ‘‘Jeanne and Jules Manford Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2607 EH

1 SECTION 1. JEANNE AND JULES MANFORD POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 7802 37th Avenue in Jackson 

5 Heights, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Jeanne and Jules Manford Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jeanne and Jules 

11 Manford Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2607 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostJules Manford Post Office Building’’. son Heights, New York, as the ‘‘Jeanne and al Service located at 7802 37th Avenue in Jack-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          15,155
<SECURITIES>                                    23,984
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,400
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,131
<PP&E>                                          25,487
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,538
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,195
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,284
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,326
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   299
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,151)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,142)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES—OXLEY ACT OF 2002     I, George E. Strickler certify that:(1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stoneridge, Inc. (the “Company”);(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;(4) The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(f)and 15d — 15(f)) for the Company and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and(5) The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.        /s/ George E. Strickler   George E. Strickler, Executive Vice President,
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James T. HARRISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30917

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 14, 2011.

Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, James G. Cowles, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Douglas Lee Harville, Harville Law Firm, L.L.C., Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent James T. Harrison, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Harrison has filed a response, moving for the appointment of new counsel. This motion, however, is untimely. *Cf. United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Harrison’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.

*

 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.
**Exhibit 10.55**

**Summary of Loan Agreement by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Eastern Branch, Agricultural Bank of China dated August 25, 2006.**

| **Summary of the main articles**    |
|-------------------------------------|
| •                              | Contract   number: No. 81101200600001439 |
| •                              | Loan   Principal: RMB 20 million; |
| •                              | Loan term: six   months starting from the date loan is actually provided to the Company. |
| •                              | Interest   rate: fixed rate of 5.58%; |
|                                | • | Penalty   interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.58% plus 50% *5.58%; |
|                                | • | Penalty   interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.58% * 2; |
| •                              | Purpose of   the loan is to provide working capital for the Company; |
| •                              | Advanced   repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Lender; |
| •                              | Breach of   contract penalties: suspension of loan not yet provided, demand prepayment of   loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest;   compensation for the Lender’s expenses incurred due to the Company’s breach   of contract such as lawyer’s fee, travel cost in case of litigation, etc. |
| **Summary of the articles omitted** |
| •                              | Types of the   loan |
| •                              | Clearing of   the loan interest |
| •                              | Conditions   precedent to the drawing of the loan |
| •                              | Rights and   obligations of the Borrower |
| •                              | Rights and   obligations of the Lender |
| •                              | Guarantee of   the loan |
| •                              | Dispute   settlement |
| •                              | Miscellaneous |
| •                              | Validity |
| •                              | Notes |
#### Carl Bisbee et al., Appellants, v James H. Spacht et al., Respondents.

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant summary judgment to defendants dismissing the complaint and declaring that the bank’s covenant to convey the mineral rights was a personal promise running from the bank to the Spachts and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that they are entitled to certain mineral rights and extinguishing defendants’ claims to those rights. They appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argue that there are no issues of fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their theories of estoppel by deed and covenant running with the land. We agree that there are no material triable issues of fact but disagree that plaintiffs are entitled to prevail on their claim.

Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their theory of estoppel by deed. The 1942 deed from the bank specifically reserved the mineral rights from the grant to Spachts. The 1945 deed from Spachts *983to Parsons, plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest, specifically conveyed "the same premises conveyed to” Spachts by the 1942 deed. Such reference to a prior conveyance defines and limits the interest granted by the subsequent deed *(Pillmore v Walsworth,*166 App Div 557, 562, *affd sub nom. Pillmore v Harrington,*232 NY 591; *see,*5A Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, Title Examination § 5.05 [4th ed]). Since Spachts did not purport to convey anything more than they had previously received, they are not estopped to deny title to the mineral rights as a result of their subsequent acquisition of those rights *(see generally,*43 NY Jur 2d, Deeds, § 259).

Nor can plaintiffs prevail on the theory that there is a covenant running with the land. We discern no intention on the part of the parties to the 1942 deed that the bank’s promise to convey one half the mineral rights to Spachts upon satisfaction of their mortgage indebtedness would run with the land so as to compel all subsequent grantors to include the mineral rights in conveyance of the surface rights *(see, Neponsit Prop. Owners’ Assn. v Emigrant Indus. Sav. Bank,*278 NY 248, 255). Moreover, we cannot conclude that the bank’s promise to convey the mineral rights "touches and concerns” the surface rights *(Eagle Enters, v Gross,*39 NY2d 505, 509-510). Consequently, we conclude that the bank’s covenant to convey the mineral rights was a personal promise running from the bank to the Spachts. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.
**AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO**


**EMPLOYMENT
      AGREEMENT**








This
      Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated as of
      October 1, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”), is made as of March 26, 2007 (the
“Execution Date”), by and between O2Diesel Corporation, a Delaware corporation
      (the “Company”) and David H. Shipman (the “Executive”).




WHEREAS,
      the parties previously entered into the Employment Agreement; and





WHEREAS,
      the Company has decided to amend the Employment Agreement to increase the
      Executive’s Base Salary.





NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein, the
      receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to
      be
      legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows:





**1.
      AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.1 OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT.**





The
      first
      sentence of Section 4.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its
      entirety and inserting the following text in lieu thereof:




“ In
      consideration of the services rendered to the Company hereunder by the Executive
      and the Executive’s covenants hereunder, effective as of January 1, 2007, the
      Company shall, during the Term, pay to the Executive an annual base salary
      at a
      rate of $210,000 (the “Base Salary”), less statutory deductions and
      withholdings, payable in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll
      practices. ”





**2.
      GENERAL.**





Except
      as
      expressly provided herein, the Employment Agreement shall be unmodified and
      shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.





*[Remainder
      of Page Intentionally Left Blank]*







The
      foregoing agreement is hereby executed effective as of the date first set first
      set forth above.





**O2DIESEL
              CORPORATION**By:
            /s/
              Alan R. RaeName:
            Alan R. RaeTitle:
            Chief Executive Officer/s/
              David H. ShipmanDavid H.
              Shipman