alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER 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 KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Annette Eggert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my 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 results of operations of the Company.

|      |              |                                |                     
|----- | ------------ | ------------------------------ | --------------------
|Date: | May 16, 2011 | By:                            | /s/ Jonathan
 Snyder
|      |              |                                |                     
|      |              | Jonathan
 Snyder              
|      |              | Chief
 Financial Officer      
|      |              | (Principal
 Financial Officer)

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

KORY ALLEN CROSSMAN, a.k.a. Lobes, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 16-10215 

D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00145-KJD 

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Kory Allen Crossman appeals from the district court’s order denying his 

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crossman contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-10215 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court 

procedurally erred by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range, failing to 

adequately explain its decision and respond to Crossman’s mitigating arguments, 

and relying on a clearly erroneous fact. The record reflects that the district court 

properly followed the approach set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 

826-27 (2010). The parties agreed on the amended Guidelines range and the 

district court understood that Crossman was eligible for a reduction to a sentence 

within that range. However, the court declined to grant a reduction. It sufficiently 

explained its decision. See United States v. Carty, 520 U.S. 984, 992 (9th Cir. 

2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court’s finding that Crossman might be released 

from prison in the future was not clearly erroneous because the record reflects that 

Crossman will be eligible for parole. See United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160, 

1176 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth clear error standard).

Crossman further contends that the district court abused its discretion when 

it declined to reduce his sentence. The district court properly based its decision on 

its conclusion that Crossman would pose a serious threat to the public in light of 

his serious post-sentencing acts of misconduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. 

n.1(B)(ii); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2233 

To suspend temporarily the duty on suspended particle device film. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on suspended particle device 

film. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENDED PARTICLE DEVICE FILM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2233 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Other optical elements; Suspended particle device film 

produced by patented technology that results in microscopic light-absorbing particles changing tint completely in seconds by adjusting the electrical voltage 

(provided for in subheading 

9001.90.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Sammy DAVIS, Jr. v. Glen McGLOTHIN.

No. 88-C-0794.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 6, 1988.

In re Davis, Sammy Jr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA88-322; Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 278981.

Prior report: La.App., 524 So.2d 1320.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Charlie CHUNN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 89-KH-0771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Chunn, Charlie; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 87-1422-A.

Denied.
#### Diana CARLISLE and Paul Carlisle v. SUN BUILDING COMPANY, INC., et al.

88-481.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 23, 1989.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1989.

John F. Kizer, Jr. and Jeffery W. Ben-nitt, Birmingham, for appellants.

Richard E. Smith of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, for appellee Sun Bldg. Co., Inc.

Susan Rogers of Harris, Evans *&*Downs, Birmingham, for appellee Bhate Engineering Corp.

John D. Herndon of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, for appellee GKN Hayward-Baker, Inc.

SHORES, Justice.

Plaintiffs, Paul and Diana Carlisle, filed this suit on June 14, 1985, against Sun Building Company, Inc., Bhate Engineering Corporation, Inc., and GKN Hayward-Baker, Inc., alleging property damage caused by construction activity on property adjacent to theirs. Each defendant filed an answer denying liability. Thereafter, each defendant commenced various discovery proceedings, including the filing of interrogatories and requests for production.

The plaintiffs failed to respond to some or all of the discovery requests, and by May 1988 one or more of the defendants filed motions to compel, which were granted. After receiving no response from the plaintiffs, defendant Sun Building Company filed a motion to dismiss the claim against it. This motion was granted, and on May 11, 1988, the court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute as to Sun Building. The entire action was dismissed on May 17, 1988.

On May 27, 1988, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the order of dismissal, under Rule 59(e), A.R.Civ.P. This motion was deemed denied on August 25, 1988, by operation of law. A.R.Civ.P. 59.1. No appeal was taken.

On November 2, 1988, the plaintiffs filed a motion under A.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), seeking to have the judgment of May 17, 1988, set aside. They alleged that mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect resulted in the dismissal of their complaint. After a hearing, this motion was overruled. Hence, this appeal.

Trial courts have wide discretion under A.R.Civ.P. 60(b), and appellate courts will not reverse the trial court’s grant or denial *1379of relief under that rule except for abuse of that discretion. *Smith v. Clark,*468 So.2d 138 (Ala.1985); *Ex parte Baker,*459 So.2d 873 (Ala.1984). See also, *Ex parte Dowling,*477 So.2d 400 (Ala.1985) (a strong presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s ruling on a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P.). The record in this case does not indicate an abuse of discretion. The case was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to comply with discovery orders after they had repeatedly been ordered to do so, and they offer no justifiable excuse.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
### SERVED: APRIL 3, 2013

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF. 

### GOJET AIRLINES, LLC FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. FAA-2012-0876
ORDEROF DISMISSAL On September 10, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a Complaint. OnAugust 17, 2012, GoJet Airlines, LLC ("Respondent") had filed a Request for Hearing. OnMarch25, 2013, Complainant filed aMotionto Withdraw Complaint. 14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orparty may withdraw a request for a hearing withoutthe consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdrawsthe request for a hearing andthe answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings underthis subpart with prejudice."

### 2 WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofComplainthavingbeenread and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Complainant's Withdrawal ofComplaint be and is hereby granted; and 2. This proceedingbe and is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List3

SERVICE LIST FDMS No. FAA-2012-0876 (Civil Penalty Action)

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001

Mr. Richard A. Leach, CEO GoJetAirlines, LLC, Respondent 11495 Navaid Road, Suite 303 Bridgeton, MO 63044 ONE COPY

David J. A. Hayes III, Respondent's Counsel Vice-President & General Counsel Trans States Holdings, Inc. 11495 Navaid Road Bridgeton, MO 63044 TEL: 314-222-4316 FAX: 314-222-4311 David B. Kessler, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ACE-7 Central Region Federal Aviation Administration Room 506, DOTBuilding 901 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3763 FAX: 816-329-3771

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2449 

To extend and make technical corrections to the temporary suspension of 

duty on 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-2-(2- 

propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend and make technical corrections to the temporary 

suspension of duty on 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2- 

propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-2-(2- 

propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4-CHLORO-N-[2-[3-METHOXY-4-(2-PROPYNYLOXY) 

4 PHENYL]ETHYL]-2-(2-PROPYNYLOXY) 

5 BENZENEACETAMIDE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.07 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2449 IS

1 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]- 

2 2-(2-propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide) is amended— 

3 (1) by striking the article description and in4 serting the following: ‘‘4-Chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4- 

5 (2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-2-(2- 

6 propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide (Mandipropamid) 

7 (CAS No. 374726–62–2) (provided for in sub8 heading 2924.29.47)’’; and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

13 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Bettye STEVENSON, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO, and Lois V. Michopoulos, Inc., d/b/a Michelles, Respondents.

No. 84CA0608.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

April 25, 1985.

*1021Pikes Peak Legal Services, R. Eric So-lem, Colorado Springs, for petitioner.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Christa Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Commission.

No appearance for respondent Miehopou-los, Inc., d/b/a Michelles.

PIERCE, Judge.

Claimant, Bettye Stevenson, seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Commission awarding her reduced unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to § 8-73-108(9)(a)(XX), C.R.S., then in effect (now found at § 8-73-108(5)(e)(XX), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.)). Although the Commission applied the wrong statutory subsection, we nevertheless affirm the order.

Claimant was terminated from her position as a cook for Michelle’s restaurant (the employer) after she refused to provide the employer with written verification of a trip to the hospital emergency room after an unexcused absence. She stated that she refused to submit the verification because the employer had not required it from other employees.

The hearing officer determined from conflicting evidence that the employer had a rule requiring such verification, and found that the employer’s request for verification was reasonable. The Commission ordered a maximum reduction in benefits pursuant to § 8-73-108(9)(a)(XX), C.R.S.

Claimant contends that that statutory section does not permit the Industrial Commission to deny unemployment benefits when termination results from a single unauthorized absence from work. We agree.

The statutory provision at issue provides for a maximum reduction of unemployment compensation benefits if termination results “[f]or other reasons including ... excessive tardiness or absenteeism ... or failure to meet established job performance or other defined standards.... ”

The facts of this case do not apply to that portion of the statute. It is obvious, however, that the Commission’s findings apply directly to the statutory section now codified as § 8-73-108(5)(e)(VI), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.), which allows maximum reduction for “[i]nsubordination such as: [deliberate disobedience of a reasonable instruction of an employer or his duly authorized representative....”

To return this case to the Commission for reconsideration under the proper section would be wasteful of time, both the Commission’s and ours, because the conclusion it would have to reach under its factual findings is foregone. It has reached the proper legal conclusion under the wrong section of the statute.

The order is, therefore, affirmed.

SMITH and BABCOCK, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**














Certification
      by the Chief Financial Officer


of


Boardwalk
      GP, LLC


pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(as
      adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned chief financial officer of Boardwalk
      GP, LLC hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the quarterly report
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, (the "Report") of Boardwalk
      Pipeline Partners, LP (the "Partnership") fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements of Income of the
      Partnership.










August
      1,
      2006






/ *s/
      Jamie L. Buskill*


Jamie
      L.
      Buskill


Vice-President
      and Chief Financial Officer


(principal
      financial officer)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas James PATTERSON.

No. 88-KH-2582.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Patterson, Thomas James; — Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 2-78-199.

Denied. Relator has not shown a particularized need for the documents he seeks. If relator seeks an out-of-time appeal, he should file an application for post-conviction relief in the district court. See *State v. Counterman,*475 So.2d 336 (La.1985).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, John H. Heyman,
do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the foregoing Annual Report of Radiant Systems, Inc. (the Company):



| | (1) | fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d), and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                        
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: March 11, 2010 |  | /s/ JOHN H. HEYMAN                     
|                      |  | John H. Heyman, Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mark E. Haidet, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the foregoing Annual Report of Radiant Systems, Inc. (the Company):



| | (1) | fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d), and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                        
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: March 11, 2010 |  | /s/ MARK E. HAIDET                     
|                      |  | Mark E. Haidet, Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Johnny TENNER, Jr.

No. 87-K-0203.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Tenner, Johnny Jr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 86 KA 0821; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “M”, No. 9-85-465.

Prior report: La.App., 501 So.2d 1090.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John Anthony SHEEHAN.

No. 88-K-0033.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1988.

In re State of Louisiana; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR87-0356; Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 60622.

Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 670.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis Lee STEWART.

No. 88-K-2502.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Stewart, Curtis Lee; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 43947.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code

I, Morton A. Plawner, Chief Financial Officer of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2007 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC.

/s/ Morton A. PlawnerMorton A. PlawnerChief Financial OfficerDate: August 10, 2007




---
P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 49 ) IV-E-4 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57:59 AM

Sheet 49 of 117P. 2 

# Mem o A-10-3>1 IF - E*-44 -

To : From : Date : Subject : Air

Docket A-90-3 7 Jo n Devine Jun e 30,199 9 Meetin g t o Discus s NS R Refor

mProposa

l O n Jun e 22 , 1999 , ameetin g wa s hel d between representative s o f th e U.S . EP

A Office o f Genera l Counsel and attorney s fromth e la w fir mo f Hunto n & Williams . Th e meetin g took plac e a t 1:0 0 P M i n th e Waterside Mall . Th e purpos e o f

th e meetin g wa s t

o discus s lega

l theorie s underlyin g suggeste d revision s t o th e ne w sourc e revie w progra

madvocate d by th e Utilit

y Air Regulator y Grou p (UARG) . Meetin g attendee s included : Henr y Nickel , Hunto n & William s Willia mBrownell , Hunto n & William s Ala n Eckert , EPA/OG

C Gregor y Foote , EPA/OG

C Jo n Devine , EPA/OG

C


# 1