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

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, F. Clay Creasey, Jr., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2010 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|June 10, 2010                                     
|                                                  
|/s/    F. Clay Creasey,
Jr.                       
|F. Clay Creasey, Jr.                              
|Executive Vice President -
Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Dane ROBERTY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30338

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed April 20, 2017

*493Cyndee L. Peterson, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,** Chief District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The government conceded that Amendment 801 to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) was a retroactive, clarifying amendment. Thus, we treat the amendment as retroactively applying to Roberty. See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1010-11 (9th Cir. 2004).

The government also conceded that the district court erred in calculating Rober-tas guidelines range by applying the section and increasing his offense level by two. The error was not harmless. “A mistake in calculating the recommended Guidelines sentencing range is a significant procedural error that requires us to remand for resentencing.” United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Under the amended guidelines section, Roberty does not qualify for the two-level increase in § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). Roberty is also potentially eligible for an additional two-level decrease. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(l). These changes would give Roberty a different guidelines range that does not substantially overlap with the range the district court calculated. Therefore, we must vacate Ro-bertas sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          28,335,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,389,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       142,000
<INVENTORY>                                        415,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,788,000
<PP&E>                                          10,070,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,268,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,194,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,200,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           170,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,393,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,194,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,361,000
<CGS>                                            1,386,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,058,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   792,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 249,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (361,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (48,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (409,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (409,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.03)




</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramone Anthony SPRUILL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-15488 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 8, 2017)

Robert G. Davies, Nancy J. Hess, Len-nard B. Register, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Christopher P. Cano-va, Robert D. Stinson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Kathryn Dee Ri-singer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Panama City, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ramone Anthony Spruill, Pro Se

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ramone Anthony Spruill *appeals.pro se*the denial of his motions to reduce his sentence and for the appointment of counsel. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Spruill sought a reduction based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

The district court lacked authority to reduce Spruill’s sentence. For the district court to reduce Spruill’s sentence, his motion must have been based on an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduced his advisory guideline range, *see*
      *650
      *id.,*and that was listed in the applicable policy statement of the Sentencing Commission, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). *See United States v. Armstrong,*347 F.3d 905, 907 (11th Cir. 2003). Because Amendment 794 is not listed in section 1B1.10(c), the amendment could not serve as a basis to reduce Spruill’s sentence.

Spruill argues that Amendment 794 clarifies the commentary to section 3B1.2 of the Guidelines and should be given retroactive effect under section 3582(c), but “ ‘clarifying amendments’ ... may only be retroactively applied on direct appeal of a sentence or [to] a ... motion [to vacate a sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255],” *Armstrong,*347 F.3d at 909. “[O]nly amendments, clarifying or not, listed under subsection (c) of § 1B1.10, and that have the effect of lowering the sentencing range upon which a sentence was based, may be considered for reduction of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2).” *Id.*Amendment 794 does not qualify for retroactive application under section 3582(c)(2).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Spruill’s request for appointed counsel. Spruill was not entitled to appointed counsel in seeking a reduction of his sentence. *See United States v. Webb,*565 F.3d 789, 794-95 (11th Cir. 2009).

We AFFIRM the denial of Spruill’s motions to reduce his sentence and for the appointment of counsel.
#### Evalina K. Hollins, App’lt, v. W. J. Demarest, Resp’t.

Appeal from judgment of this court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Limited, Appellant, *v.*Otis Elevator Company, Respondent.

Submitted October 22, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*Per Curiam.*

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal is denied. The cases cited in denying the original motion *255show that the court is without power to entertain an appeal when it appears that an appellant has failed to comply with the limitations of time imposed by section 592, subdivision 3, of the Civil Practice Act. This court possesses only, those powers which are conferred by the Constitution as limited by statute in accordance with the Constitution. Such powers thus limited may not be enlarged by consent of the parties.

Motion denied. '
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford Lamar VASON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-11378 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 26, 2017)

*675Christopher P. Canova, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert G. Davies, Randall Joseph Hensel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Clifford Lamar Vason, Pro Se

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Vason, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After careful review, we affirm.

I.

In 2005, Vason pled guilty to one count of kidnapping and transportation of persons in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i). He was sentenced to 181-months imprisonment.

In 2017, Vason filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e)(2). He argued that an amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2 should allow him to receive a reduction to his guidelines sentencing range. The district court denied his motion, ruling it was “not authorized to reconsider a sentence relative to commentary in [§ 3B1.2].” This appeal followed.

II.

We review de novo whether the district court has authority to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1191 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Section 3582(c)(2) allows a court to modify a prison sentence if it was imposed “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission ... if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” The applicable policy statement, contained in Guidelines § 1B1.10, allows courts to reduce prison sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) only if the guideline amendment is listed in Guidelines § 1B1.10(d), USSG § 1B1.10(a); see United States v. Melton, 861 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2017).

Vason argues that his sentence should be reduced based on Guidelines Amendment 794, which addressed § 3B1.2. See USSG Suppl. to App. C, Amend. 794 (2015). However, Amendment 794 is not among the guideline amendments listed in § lB1.10(d). Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) does not allow Vason to be resentenced based on the change to Guidelines § 3B1.2 after his sentence was imposed.1 See United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 907-08 (11th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.

1

. Vason also attacks his conviction for the first time on appeal based on the Supreme Court's opinion in Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1240, 188 L.Ed.2d 248 (2014). However, a court cannot review a conviction on a motion to reduce sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Cf. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Section 3582(c) ... does not grant to the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous re-sentencing issues. [The Appellant] must instead bring ... a collateral attack on his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”).
#### NFC TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Appellant v. Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor

2016-1809

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 20, 2017

Jon Wright, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Adam Lar-ock, Brian Lee; Robert Auchter, McKool Smith, P.C., Washington, DC,

Benjamin T. Hickman, Office of the Solicitor, United'States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for - intervenor Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Joseph Gerard Piccolo, Scott Weidenfel-ler.

(Newman, Lourie, and Hughes, Circuit Judges),

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED, *See*Fed. Cir, R. 36.
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER
ETESSMitchell Grossinger EtessChief Executive Officer,Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityFebruary 13, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.25.3  


 
 

Amendment 2 to
  First Amendment and Restatement
  of
  Alliant Techsystems Inc.
  2000 Stock Incentive Plan
  effective January 21, 2002    
  


Section 4
(a) of the First Amendment and Restatement of Alliant Techsystems Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety: 


        "(a)    Shares Available.    Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c) of the Plan, the aggregate
number of Shares that may be issued under all Awards under the Plan shall be 795,000. Shares to be issued under the Plan may be either authorized but unissued Shares or Shares acquired in the open
market or otherwise. Any Shares that are used by a Participant as full or partial payment to the Company of the purchase price relating to an Award, or in connection with the satisfaction of tax
obligations relating to an Award, shall again be available for granting Awards under the Plan. In addition, if any Shares covered by an Award or to which an Award relates are not purchased or are
forfeited, or if an Award otherwise terminates without delivery of any Shares, then the number of Shares counted against the aggregate number of Shares available under the Plan with respect to such
Award, to the extent of any such forfeiture or termination, shall again be available for granting Awards under the Plan." 



        Further,
Section 11 of the First Amendment and Restatement of Alliant Techsystems Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety: 


        "No
Award shall be granted under the Plan after January 31, 2003 or any earlier date of discontinuation or termination established pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Plan.
However, unless otherwise expressly provided in the Plan or in an applicable Award Agreement, any Award theretofore granted may extend beyond such date, and the authority of the Committee provided for
hereunder with respect to the Plan and any Awards, and the authority of the Board of Directors of the Company to amend the Plan, shall extend beyond that date." 









QuickLinks


Amendment 2 to First Amendment and Restatement of Alliant Techsystems Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan effective January 21, 2002
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.116    
  


 
 

AMENDMENT TO THE
  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
  


        This Amendment Agreement, made as of the 28th day of November, 2001 is between ATC Healthcare, Inc (formerly Staff Builders, Inc.) (the
"Company") and David Savitsky (the "Employee"). 


        WHEREAS,
the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1987, amended by Agreement dated October 31, 1991, January 3, 1992,
December 7, 1992 and (the "Agreement"), October 20, 1999. 


        WHEREAS,
the parties now desire to further amend the Agreement as provided herein; 


        NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 


	1.
	Section 3(a)
of the Agreement, relating to compensation, is hereby amended such that the Employee's base salary will be increased to $503,619.



	2.
	Section 4,
relating to duties is hereby amended such that the position of Chief Executive Officer is added to Employee's duties. 




        Except
as expressly amended herein, all other terms, conditions, agreements, representations and warranties contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written: 



	 	 	ATC HEALTHCARE, INC.
	

 	
 	

By	

/s/  STEPHEN SAVITSKY      
 Name: Stephen Savitsky

Title: Chairman of the Board
	

 	
 	
EMPLOYEE
	

 	
 	

 	

/s/  DAVID SAVITSKY      
 David Savitsky











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.116


AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Exhibit 35.1ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE     This Compliance Certificate is furnished pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and ServicingAgreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 3, 2006, by and among Hyundai Auto ReceivablesTrust 2006-B, Hyundai Motor Finance Company, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”), Hyundai ABSFunding Corporation, as depositor, and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee and Item 1123 ofRegulation AB. The undersigned hereby certifies that:1) I am a duly authorized officer of the Servicer.2) A review of the activities of the Servicer from November 3, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the“Relevant Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance under the Agreement during the Relevant Periodhas been made under my supervision.3) Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Period.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this Compliance Certificate this 30th day of March, 2007.      HYUNDAI MOTOR FINANCE COMPANY, as Servicer
GRQ
Consultants, Inc. 401(k)


595 South
Federal Highway


Suite
600


Boca
Raton, Florida 33432




December
30, 2008




interCLICK,
Inc.


257 Park
Avenue South


Suite
602


New York,
New York 10010


Attn:
Chief Executive Officer




Re: Amendment to 6% Senior
Promissory Note




Ladies
and Gentlemen:




Reference
is hereby made to that certain 6% Senior Promissory Note, dated September 26,
2008, issued by interCLICK, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), to GRQ
Consultants, Inc. 401(k) (“GRQ”) in the original
principal amount of $650,000.00 (the “Note”), of which
$650,000.00 principal amount remains outstanding on the date
hereof.




GRQ and
the Company hereby agree that, subject to, and effective upon, the receipt by
GRQ of $250,000 by wire transfer of immediately available funds in accordance
with the instructions set forth on Exhibit A hereto (the
“Payment”),
which amount shall reduce the principal amount of the note to $400,000, from the
Company by no later than 5:00 p.m. New York time, on December 31, 2008 (such
time and date, the “Payment Deadline”),
the definition of “Maturity Date” set forth in the Note shall be amended in its
entirety to mean June 30, 2009.




In the
event that GRQ does not receive the Payment by the Payment Deadline, this
Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect, and the Note shall
not be amended in the manner set forth herein (i.e., the “Maturity Date” in the
Note shall remain December 31, 2008).




This
letter agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
internal laws of the state of New York, without giving effect to its principles
of conflicts of laws, shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns, and may be executed in counterparts (which
may be delivered by facsimile or other electronic transmission).




As
modified hereby, the Amendment Agreement remains in full force and
effect.




******************





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Letter Agreement to be duly
executed as of the date first written above.




GRQ
      Consultants, Inc. 401(k)By:Name:
      Barry HonigTitle:
      President





Acknowledged
and Agreed to this ___ day of December, 2008.




INTERCLICK,
INC.




By:Name:
      Michael MathewsTitle:
      Chief Executive
Officer





EXHIBIT
A




WIRE
INSTRUCTIONS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6826 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6826

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National 
   Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and 
                           Education Center.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    (a) Designation.--The visitor and education center at Fort McHenry 
National Monument and Historic Shrine, currently located at 2400 E Fort 
Ave, Baltimore, MD 21230, is designated as the ``Paul S. Sarbanes 
Visitor and Education Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other document of the United States to the visitor center 
designated by subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6826

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National 
   Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and 
                           Education Center.
```