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

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with
the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, I, David J. Schramm, Chief Executive Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at the dates indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|              |  |  |  |                                                                    
|------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|              |  | 
|March 5, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/    DAVID J.
SCHRAMM                                            
|              |  |  |  | David J. Schramm                                                   
|              |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed copy of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>                        ART 5 FDS for 10-K                            
</LEGEND>                        
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<CURRENCY>                         0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                      1
<CASH>                           5,538
<SECURITIES>                     4,204
<RECEIVABLES>                   15,897
<ALLOWANCES>                       387
<INVENTORY>                     10,440
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                36,702
<PP&E>                          22,157
<DEPRECIATION>                   4,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  71,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           16,305
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                           100
<OTHER-SE>                      53,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    71,237
<SALES>                         87,516
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                87,516
<CGS>                           50,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   28,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  8,695
<INCOME-TAX>                     3,246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              5,449
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                     5,449
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .54
        


</TABLE>
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 06-10527 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-98-00114-FCD

DEANGELO DOMINGO DAVIS,

OPINION Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

March 10, 2008—San Francisco, California

Filed March 19, 2008

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, John T. Noonan, and

Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

2629
COUNSEL

Matthew M. Robinson, Robinson & Brandt, P.S.C., Cincinnati, Ohio, for the defendant-appellant. 

McGregor W. Scott, United States Attorney, and William S.

Wong, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, California, for the plaintiff-appellee. 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

We issued a limited remand in this case with instructions

to the district court to take two specific actions: 1) strike the

conviction and the sentence as to count four; and 2) determine, in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d

2630 UNITED STATES v. DAVIS
1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), whether the district court

would have imposed the same sentence had it been aware that

the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. See United States v. Davis, 138 F. App’x. 914, 915 (9th

Cir. 2005). 

On remand, the district court struck the conviction and the

sentence as to count four. The court also declared that it

would not have imposed a different sentence on Davis had it

known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. The district court then went on, however, to reconsider Davis’s sentence as to count three, increasing it substantially. 

[1] Where this court expressly limits the scope of remand,

the district court is without authority to reexamine other sentencing issues on remand. United States v. Pimentel, 34 F.3d

799, 800 (9th Cir. 1994). In this case, the district court

exceeded its authority when it increased Davis’s sentence on

count three. We therefore vacate Davis’s sentence and instruct

the district court to reimpose his original sentence, except that

no sentence shall be imposed on count four. No adjustment

shall be made with respect to any other count.1

VACATED AND REMANDED for the sole purpose of

resentencing as provided in this opinion. 

1Because the district court lacked authority to resentence Davis except

in accordance with the instructions contained in the limited mandate, we

do not consider Davis’s other challenges to the sentence. 

UNITED STATES v. DAVIS 2631
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1816

BARR MICHAEL MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(CA-97-57-D)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barr Michael Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Agnis Chandra Chakravorty,

WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

civil complaint alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

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

district court. Martin v. City of Danville, VA, No. CA-97-57-D

(W.D. Va. May 4, 1998). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5

<MULTIPLIER>     1,000



<S>                                <C>

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-2000

<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-2000

<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-2000

<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS

<CASH>                                                    11,239

<SECURITIES>                                                   0

<RECEIVABLES>                                            381,806

<ALLOWANCES>                                              21,076

<INVENTORY>                                              310,941

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         716,778

<PP&E>                                                   559,060

<DEPRECIATION>                                           267,992

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,318,019

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    159,832

<BONDS>                                                  502,500

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0

<PREFERRED>                                                    0

<COMMON>                                                  52,277

<OTHER-SE>                                               118,453

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,318,019

<SALES>                                                1,097,026

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,097,026

<CGS>                                                    785,708

<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            785,708

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           1,544

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        18,917

<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           94,954

<INCOME-TAX>                                              34,211

<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       60,743

<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           (2,522)

<CHANGES>                                                      0

<NET-INCOME>                                              58,221

<EPS-BASIC>                                                 1.18

<EPS-DILUTED>                                               1.16




</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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Region VI Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 9 a.m. The meeting will take place at the State Capitol, Old Supreme Court Room, Fifth and Woodlane, Little Rock, AR to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by Federal agencies. 

                    Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Carol Silverstrom, in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the agenda. Carol Silverstrom, Public Information Officer, SBA, Arkansas District Office, 2120 Riverfront Drive Suite 250, Little Rock, AR 72202-1796, phone (501) 324-7379 Ext. 227, fax (501) 324-7395, e-mail:                     *Carol.silverstrom@sba.gov.*

                    For more information, see our Web site at                     *http://www.sba.gov/​ombudsman.*

Matthew K. Becker, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-21600 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 510 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that the payment 

of the manufacturers’ excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. KIND (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. BOREN, Mr. ROSS, Mr. 

MILLER of Florida, Mr. TANNER, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, 

Mr. MATHESON, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, 

Mr. MCHUGH, and Mrs. BACHMANN) 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 require 

that the payment of the manufacturers’ excise tax on 

recreational equipment be paid quarterly. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF MANUFACTURERS’ EX4 CISE TAX ON RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 6302 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to mode or 

7 time of collection) is amended to read as follows: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 510 IH

1 ‘‘(d) TIME FOR PAYMENT OF MANUFACTURERS’ EX2 CISE TAX ON RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT.—The taxes 

3 imposed by subchapter D of chapter 32 of this title (relat4 ing to taxes on recreational equipment) shall be due and 

5 payable on the date for filing the return for such taxes.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall apply to articles sold by the manufac8 turer, producer, or importer after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Exhibit 10.5
 FIRST PLACE BANK  CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
 First Place Bank
 First Place Financial Corp.
   Term of Agreement. June 30, 2009
 Extension of Term. July 1, 2008
 Change in Control followed by Termination of Employment.
 - Page 1 -




---



##### 



Definitions.
 Change in Control.
 Termination for Cause.
 - Page 2 -




---



##### 



Termination Benefits.
 Sum Payable.
 Time of Payment.
 Regulatory Capital Limitation.
 Life and Medical Insurance Coverage.
 - Page 3 -




---



##### 



Section 280G.
 Notice of Termination.
 Form.
 Date of Termination.
 Dispute.
 - Page 4 -




---



##### 



Source of Payments.
 Effect on Prior Agreements and Existing Benefit Plans.
 No Attachment; No Assignment; Successors.
   Modification and Waiver.
   Effect of Action Under Holding Company Agreement.
 Required Regulatory Provisions.
  - Page 5 -




---



##### 



Reinstatement of Benefits Under Section 12(B).
 Severability.
 - Page 6 -




---



##### 



Headings for Reference Only.
 Governing Law.
 Arbitration.
 Payment of Costs and Legal Fees.
 Indemnification.
   Successor to the Bank.
 - Page 7 -




---



##### 



FIRST PLACE BANK
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVESteven R. Lewis,Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    
    
    
    
    Date:FIRST PLACE FINANCIAL CORP.
     (Guarantor)Steven R. Lewis,President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
 - Page 8 -
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5390 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, as 

the ‘‘David John Donafee Post Office Building’’. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5390 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DAVID JOHN DONAFEE POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, 

5 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘David John 

6 Donafee 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 ‘‘David John Donafee 

11 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By DEBORAH M. SPRIGGS, 

Deputy Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# L_2007087EN.01001301.xml

| 28.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 87/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 87/13

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 26 March 2007

amending Decision 2006/596/EC drawing up the list of Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as concerns Bulgaria and Romania

(notified under document number C(2007) 1282)

(2007/188/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions for the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Commission Decision 2006/596/EC (2), a list of Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 was established. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Commission Decision 2006/596/EC (2), a list of Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 was established.

| (2) | Following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, these Member States should be added to the list of Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007 to 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, these Member States should be added to the list of Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007 to 2013.

| (3) | Decision 2006/596/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2006/596/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (4) | For reasons of clarity and legal certainty, this Decision should apply from the date of accession of Bulgaria and Romania, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

For reasons of clarity and legal certainty, this Decision should apply from the date of accession of Bulgaria and Romania,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex I of Decision 2006/596/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from the 1 January 2007.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 March 2007.

For the Commission

Danuta HÜBNER

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1989/2006 (OJ L 411, 30.12.2006, p. 6).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 243, 6.9.2006, p. 47.

2

---

ANNEX

‘ANNEX I

List of Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund on 1 January 2007

| Bulgaria |
| --- |

Bulgaria

| Czech Republic |
| --- |

Czech Republic

| Estonia |
| --- |

Estonia

| Greece |
| --- |

Greece

| Cyprus |
| --- |

Cyprus

| Latvia |
| --- |

Latvia

| Lithuania |
| --- |

Lithuania

| Hungary |
| --- |

Hungary

| Malta |
| --- |

Malta

| Poland |
| --- |

Poland

| Portugal |
| --- |

Portugal

| Romania |
| --- |

Romania

| Slovenia |
| --- |

Slovenia

| Slovakia’ |
| --- |

Slovakia’

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.10

First Amendment
to the
Associate Stock Ownership Plan

(Amended and Restatedas of December 31, 1997)

Resolved, that the Associate Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan) amended and
restated as of December 31, 1997, is hereby amended in the following
particulars, effective as of January 1, 2001;



| | 1. |  | By deleting the last two
sentences in Section 2 Eligibility
and replacing them with the following:
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Further notwithstanding anything contained in the Plan to the
contrary, the maximum contributions that can be made by an Eligible
Employee during the calendar year shall not exceed the lessor of
(i) a number of Common shares, which when aggregated, would not
have a fair market value (as determined on the first day of the
applicable Purchase Periods) in excess of $25,000, and (ii) 15% of
the Eligible Employees compensation paid during the calendar year.
In addition, the number of Common Shares which may be purchased by
any Eligible Employee during the Purchase Period shall not exceed
1000, subject to adjustment in the same manner described in Section
12, in the case of the occurrence of any of the events described in
Section 12.
| |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | By deleting the percentage of 10% in the second sentence of
the second paragraph of subsection (a) Payroll Deduction of Section
4 Basis of Participation, and replacing it with 15%.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

St. Louis, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1108

Issued: July 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 7, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an October 15, 2021 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-1108.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the October 15, 2021 decision was April 13, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until July 7, 2022, more than 180 days after the October 15, 

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1108 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 

180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 

22-1108, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1108 is dismissed.

Issued: July 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. 

at § 501.6(d).