alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.3


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, 2012, 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, 2012, 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/A of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2012, 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.








October 10, 2013/S/    DAVIDJ. SCHRAMMDavid J. SchrammPresident 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Mission Resources Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-27707, 333-57827, 333-54798, 333-63562, 333-105169, 333-116404 and
333-120351) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-111955, 333-113971 and 333-119258) on Form
S-3 of Mission Resources Corporation of our reports dated March 7, 2005, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Mission Resources Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and comprehensive
income or loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2004, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K
of Mission Resources Corporation.

As discussed in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, effective
January 1, 2003, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations. As discussed in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements,
effective January 1, 2002, the Company adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.

KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 7, 2005
# C_2007102EN.01000101.xml

| 5.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4448 — ICA Baltic/RIMI Baltic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 102/01)

On 11 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4448. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4448. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.10(j)


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                          COPYRIGHT SECURITY AGREEMENT


        This AMENDMENT TO COPYRIGHT SECURITY AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") amends
and shall be considered a part of that certain Copyright Security Agreement (the
"Agreement"), dated as of May 5, 1998, entered into between PERCEPTIVE
SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, INC, a Delaware corporation ("Old PSI") and FOOTHILL
CAPITAL CORPORATION, a California corporation ("Lender"), which was filed and
recorded with the United States Copyright Office on May 18, 1998, in Volume
3416, Page 68. Old PSI has merged into PERCEPTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Debtor"). Debtor and Lender agree as
follows:

        1. The introductory paragraph is hereby amended by deleting the same in
its entirety and replacing it with the following:

               "This COPYRIGHT SECURITY AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated as of May
5, 1998, is entered into between PERCEPTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Debtor") and FOOTHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION,
a California corporation ("Foothill"), in light of the following:"

        2. Except as expressly amended or modified pursuant to this Amendment,
the Agreement shall remain otherwise unchanged and in full force and effect.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Debtor and Lender have executed this Amendment as of
the 23 day of March, 1999.

                            FOOTHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION,
                            a California corporation


                            By:       /s/ STEPHEN SCHWARTZ
                               -------------------------------------------------
                            Title:   Assistant Vice President
                                  ----------------------------------------------


                            PERCEPTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, LLC,
                            a Delaware limited liability company

                            By:     Statspin, Inc.,
                                    a Massachusetts corporation


                            By:    /s/ MARTIN S. McDERMOT
                               -------------------------------------------------
                            Title: Vice President and Chief Executive Officer
                                  ----------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5395 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 491
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5395

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2010

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

                             July 28, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, as the ``Paula 
                    Hawkins Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PAULA HAWKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Paula Hawkins Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paula 
Hawkins Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 491

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5395

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, as the ``Paula 
                    Hawkins Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 28, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
# C_2007238EN.01000501.xml

| 10.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4905 — WL Ross/C&A Automotive Interior Businesses II)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 238/02)

On 26 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4905. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4905. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1017

Issued: December 22, 2023

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On July 26, 2023 appellant sought an appeal from a purported July 3, 2023 decision of the 

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

assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-1017.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the 

date appellant filed her appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a 

final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

appeal.3 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 23 -1017 must be 

dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-1017 is dismissed.

Issued: December 22, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
#### Ray Albert LEWIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Richard MORGAN, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-35289.

D.C. No. CV-03-00735-JCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 1, 2005.

Ray Albert Lewis, Walla Walla, WA, pro se.

Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Gregory J. Rosen, Esq., AGWA—Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia) Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ray Albert Lewis, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal as untimely of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in which he claimed that the trial court violated his right to due process by admitting evidence that the state had coerced him into revealing while he was a pretrial detainee. Lewis contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in *In re Perkins,*143 Wash.2d 261, 19 P.3d 1027 (Wash.2001). *Perkins*held that under state law, the Washington Supreme Court has jurisdiction to consider second or successive personal restraint petitions raising new claims not raised in previous petitions so long as there is no abuse of writ. *Id.*at 1028, 1030. After *Perkins,*Lewis filed a fourth personal restraint petition raising his new claim of coerced evidence. These circumstances do not justify equitable tolling because Lewis does not explain why he failed to raise the coerced-evidence claim in his multiple prior state ,and federal petitions. *See Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that equitable tolling may be appropriate when external forces, rather than petitioner’s lack of diligence, prevent timely filing).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *149courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM McKINLEY LINGERFELT

No. 7424SC871

(Filed 5 February 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Thornburg, Judge,*27 May 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Madison County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 January 1975.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with felonious breaking or entering and with felonious larceny.

The State’s evidence tended to show that during the night of the offense defendant’s automobile was near the scene, some twelve to fourteen miles from defendant’s residence. Several of the items stolen at the time of the breaking or entering were found in and near defendant’s residence.

The defendant’s evidence tended to show that during the night in question he remained at home all night; that one Norris came by his house and borrowed his car; about two hours later Norris returned his car, left the seized items at defendant’s residence and stated that he would return to pick them up. Norris cannot now be found.

The case was submitted to the jury under the doctrine of possession of recently stolen property. From a verdict of guilty as charged and judgment entered thereon, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Magner, for the State.*

*Ronald W. Howell, for the defendant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendant has preserved his assignments of error and has brought them forward for consideration on appeal. We have studied the record on appeal and have given careful consideration to each assignment of error and defendant’s argument upon each. In our opinion no prejudicial error has been made to appear.

No error.

Judges Britt and Clark concur.
# C_2008035EN.01000501.xml

| 8.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4975 — Mitsui/Rubis/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 35/04)

On 25 January 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4975. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4975. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### The STATE ex rel. DAVIS v. GHEE.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Davis v. Ghee*(1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 569.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County.

No. 97 C.A. 94.

Decided March 9, 1998.

*Ed Davis, pro se.*

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Brian M. Zets,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Margarette Ghee.

*Per Curiam.*

In December 1993, relator Ed Davis was declared a parole violator by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. Relator was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Las Vegas, Nevada, on June 3, 1996, and extradited to Ohio on June 30, 1996. Relator states that he received notice of a revocation hearing set for July *57011, 1996, but on July 10, 1996, he was picked up on a warrant from Mahoning County, which had been filed in December 1993. Relator alleges that he is being held on the parole violation and that he has never received a revocation hearing in this matter.

Relator has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to force the Ohio Adult Parole Authority to hold a revocation hearing.

Respondent has answered with a motion to dismiss and in the alternative a request to transfer this case, pursuant to Civ.R. 3(C), to the county in which venue is proper.

The Court of Appeals for Scioto County addressed an analogous situation in *State ex rel. Bickerstaff v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.*(Sept. 11, 1987), Scioto App. No. 1667, unreported, 1987 WL 17290. In *Bickerstaff,*the petitioner, a prisoner, sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court, ordering the Adult Parole Authority to credit him with time served in the Cuyahoga County Jail while he waited transportation to the Ohio State Reformatory. The court found that venue was improper. The court reasoned that Bickerstaff s cause of action arose in Franklin County, since this is where the Adult Parole Authoiity conducted business and where the alleged wrong occurred.

In this case, Davis was sentenced in Mahoning County. However, the actual harm he alleges was not caused by his sentencing. The harm he asserts has allegedly been caused by the prison officials’ failure to hold a revocation hearing. Thus, based on *Bickerstaff,*Davis’s cause of action arose where the prison officials conducted business and where the alleged harm occurred.

Note that Civ.R. 3(C)(1) does not mandate dismissal based upon improper venue. The proper procedure is to transfer the case to the proper forum within the state if one is available, pursuant to Civ.R. 3(C)(1). See, also, *Singleton v. Denny’s, Inc.*(1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 225, 227, 522 N.E.2d 1097, 1099-1100.

Accordingly, this case is transferred to the Court of Appeals for Franklin County where venue is proper. The clerk of this court is directed to forward the file of this matter to the Clerk of the Tenth District Court of Appeals for further proceedings according to law.

Matter dismissed from the docket record of this court. No costs assessed.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Gene Donofrio, Cox and Vukovich, JJ., concur.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, ALBERT J. ELLIS 

AIRPORT, Richlands, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1149

Issued: September 6, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 29, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a November 22, 2021 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1149.

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 November 22, 2021 decision was May 21, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until July 29, 2022,more than 180 days after the

November 22, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1149 is 

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

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

a reason to 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. 22-1149, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1149 is dismissed.

Issued: September 6, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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).