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

CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Annual Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 16, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ John J. Park       
|                        |  |     |  | John J. Park           
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hewitt
Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as and exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Nisan Cohen, certify that:

 

1.                                                    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Regal Entertainment Group;

 

2.                                                    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

 

3.                                                    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 
| Date: March 22,   2018 | /s/ NISAN   COHEN            |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                        | Nisan Cohen                       |
|                        | *Chief   Executive Officer*       |
|                        | *(Principal   Executive Officer)* |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mitchell MCGUIRE, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 08-1461.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Jan. 14, 2009.

Mitchell McGuire on brief pro se.

Renée M. Bunker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before LIPEZ, SELYA and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is defendant Mitchell McGuire’s pro se appeal from the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and the recently amended crack guidelines.1 The only argument that defendant makes on appeal is that the district court denied him due process by treating his motion for appointment of counsel as a motion for a sentence reduction and denying it as such.

We need not consider the merits of that due-process argument because any error in denying a reduction without first giving defendant an opportunity to be heard was harmless; it is clear that the reduction would have been correctly denied in any event. *United States v. Ganun,*547 F.3d 46, 47 (1st Cir.2008) (per curiam). As recognized by the district court, defendant was statutorily ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because his guideline range was based on the career offender guideline rather than the crack guideline and therefore was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered” by the recent crack cocaine amendments. *United States v. Ayala-Pizarro,*551 F.3d 84, 85 (1st Cir.2008); *United States v. Caraballo,*552 F.3d 6,11-12 (1st Cir.2008).

*622Accordingly, the district court’s order denying a sentence reduction is *affirmed.*

1

. Amendment 706, effective November 1, 2007, reduced the base offense levels for crack offenses by two levels. Amendment 713, effective March 3, 2008, made amendment 706 retroactive.
Exhibit 12.1
  CERTIFICATION
    Form 20-F
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) Rules 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
    supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
    Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
    to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
    period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
    caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
    designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
    regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
    preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
    accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure
    controls and procedures and presented in this report our
    conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
    and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
    report based on such evaluation; andd)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys
    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
    the period covered by the annual report that has materially
    affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
    Companys internal control over financial
    reporting; and    a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
    design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
    which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
    Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
    financial information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
    other employees who have a significant role in the
    Companys internal control over financial reporting.     RYUJI
    YAMADA
  Ryuji Yamada
  President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Equitex, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Henry Fong, President,
Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(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,
     as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


                                      /s/ Henry Fong
                                      ------------------------------------
                                      Henry Fong
                                      President, Treasurer and
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      August 22, 2005


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO EQUITEX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND WILL BE RETAINED BY EQUITEX, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST.
# Úradný vestník C 188/2022

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 188 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 6510. mája 2022 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 188

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 6510. mája 2022

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | Korigendá |
| | Korigendum k zhrnutiu rozhodnutí Európskej komisie o autorizáciách pre uvedenie na trh na účely použitia a/alebo pre používanie látok uvedených v prílohe XIV k nariadeniu Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1907/2006 o registrácii, hodnotení, autorizácii a obmedzovaní chemikálií (REACH) [Uverejnené podľa článku 64 ods. 9 nariadenia (ES) č. 1907/2006] (2022/C 131/05) ( Ú. v. EÚ C 131, 24.3.2022 ) | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

Korigendá

Korigendum k zhrnutiu rozhodnutí Európskej komisie o autorizáciách pre uvedenie na trh na účely použitia a/alebo pre používanie látok uvedených v prílohe XIV k nariadeniu Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1907/2006 o registrácii, hodnotení, autorizácii a obmedzovaní chemikálií (REACH) [Uverejnené podľa článku 64 ods. 9 nariadenia (ES) č. 1907/2006] (2022/C 131/05) ( Ú. v. EÚ C 131, 24.3.2022 )

( Ú. v. EÚ C 131, 24.3.2022 )

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

Korigendá

| 10.5.2022 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 188/1

---

Korigendum k zhrnutiu rozhodnutí Európskej komisie o autorizáciách pre uvedenie na trh na účely použitia a/alebo pre používanie látok uvedených v prílohe XIV k nariadeniu Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1907/2006 o registrácii, hodnotení, autorizácii a obmedzovaní chemikálií (REACH) [Uverejnené podľa článku 64 ods. 9 nariadenia (ES) č. 1907/2006] (2022/C 131/05)

(
  Úradný vestník Európskej únie C 131 z 24. marca 2022
  )

(2022/C 188/01)

Strana 5, tabuľka, druhý stĺpec:

namiesto:

„27. marca 2022“

má byť:

„17. marca 2022“.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Joning, Corp. on Form 10-KSB for
the year ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
commission on the date hereof, I, John O. Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


July 6, 2004

/s/ John O. Jones
-----------------------
John O. Jones
Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
     Balance Sheet at April 3, 1999, Statement of Income at April 3, 1999. Other
SE is retained earnings. Interest Expense is net interest income.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-03-1999
<CASH>                          2,069,874
<SECURITIES>                    0    
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,749,049
<ALLOWANCES>                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                     2,696,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,623,111
<PP&E>                          3,918,242
<DEPRECIATION>                  3,008,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  7,733,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           721,824
<BONDS>                         64,422
<COMMON>                        5,016,468
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0    
<OTHER-SE>                      1,930,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    7,733,035   
<SALES>                         1,716,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,717,128
<CGS>                           1,423,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,952,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (16,763)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (219,003)
<INCOME-TAX>                    14,865
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (233,868)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (233,868)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (0.08)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.08)


        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of William F. Davis, Respondent. RTC Transportation, Inc., Appellant; Lillian Roberts, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Levine, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September *28, 1984,*which assessed the employer the sum of $18,875 as contributions due for the audit period from September 14, 1981 through September 12, 1982.

In September of 1981, claimant entered into a contract with RTC Transportation, Inc. (RTC) wherein he agreed to perform *1031services as a truck driver, using a tractor trailer which he purchased on the installment plan from RTC. In September of 1982, RTC terminated the contract. Claimant then filed for unemployment insurance benefits. RTC was assessed for contributions relating thereto, having been determined to be claimant’s employer.

On this appeal, RTC contends that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant was its employee rather than an independent contractor is not based on substantial evidence in the record. We cannot agree. As noted in the Board’s opinion, the record contains a considerable amount of evidence of the control which RTC exercised over claimant’s employment, e.g., RTC assigned jobs to claimant and directed him where to pick up and drop off loads. RTC’s name was painted on claimant’s tractor and it owned the trailers which claimant hauled. Claimant was permitted to use other drivers on his assignments only if they had first been approved by RTC. Further, claimant was required to call RTC’s dispatch offices at various points along his route, and he had to submit a trip log, shipping documents and fuel receipts to RTC at the end of each assignment and prior to being compensated.

The issue of whether an employment relationship exists is a question of fact for the Board’s determination which, if based on substantial evidence, may not be disturbed *(Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts],*60 NY2d 734, 736). While no single factor is dispositive in the resolution of this issue, the amount of control exercised over a claimant is a significant factor to be considered *(Matter of Adamo [Roberts],*92 AD2d 1056). As outlined above, there were sufficient indicia of RTC’s direct control over claimant’s employment to constitute substantial evidence in support of the Board’s finding of an employment relationship. While there is arguably some evidence in the record of the independent nature of claimant’s employment which might have supported a contrary conclusion, there is still a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the Board’s determination to place it beyond our review *(Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], supra,*p 736).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

MORRIS MAY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2012-5109

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in case no. 11-CV-774, Judge Susan G. Braden. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

Morris May moves without opposition for an extension 

of time to file a reply brief. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. May’s reply brief is due no 

later than 21 days from the date of this order.

Case: 12-5109 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2013
MORRIS MAY v. US 2

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s25 

Case: 12-5109 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2013
#### Willie James JONES, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY CORRECTIONS CENTER; State of Nebraska, Appellees. Willie James Jones, Appellant, v. Danielle Unknown, from DCCC Mental Health, sued in their individual and official capacities; Unknown, Captain or SGT #352 DCCC, sued in their individual and official capacities; Bennett, DCCC, sued in their individual and official capacities; Unknown McNeil, #383 DCCC, sued in their individual and official capacities; Unknown, # 409 DCCC, sued in their individual and official capacities; Unknown Ballard, #281 DCCC, sued in their individual and official capacities; Monica Bell, c/o, sued in their individual and official capacities, Appellees.

Nos. 07-3282, 07-3306.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 3, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 9, 2009.

*340Willie James Jones, Savannah, GA, pro se.

Diane Margaret Carlson, Omaha, NE, for Appellees.

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, former prisoner Willie Jones challenges two final orders of the district court.1 In No. 07-3282, he appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and in No. 07-3306, he appeals the district court’s dismissal of a second unrelated section 1983 complaint for failure to state a. claim.

After careful review, *see Rouse v. Benson,*193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir.1999) (district court’s grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Jones’s complaint in No. 07-3282 because defendants established that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”); *Jones v. Bock,*549 U.S. 199, 211-17, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (failure to exhaust is affirmative defense); *Nerness v. Johnson,*401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (defendant has burden of proving failure to exhaust); *Johnson v. Jones,*340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir.2003) (inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit; “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”). However, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, *see Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,*155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir.1998) (affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but modifying to be without prejudice), and we affirm the dismissal as modified.

We further conclude in No. 07-3306 that Jones has waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his complaint *341because he did not make any arguments related to this dismissal in his opening brief. *See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp.,*481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir.2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are deemed waived). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of his complaint.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Amendment and Termination
 Additional Plan Information
 Plan Name:
    
    Sourcefire, Inc. Executive Retention PlanType of Plan:
    
    Unfunded welfare benefit planPlan Sponsor:
    
    Sourcefire, Inc.Identification Numbers:
    
    EIN: 52-228965
PLAN NUMBER: 505Plan Year:
    
    January 1  December 31
The initial Plan Year will commence on March 31,
2008 and end on December 31, 2008. The final Plan
Year will commence on January 1, 2011 and end on
December 31, 2011.




---



##### 



Plan Administrator:
    
    The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
Sourcefire, Inc.
9770 Patuxent Woods Dr.
Columbia, MD 21046-1526Agent for Service of
Legal Process:
    
    Sourcefire, Inc.
9770 Patuxent Woods Dr.
Columbia, MD 21046-1526
Attn: General CounselFunding Mechanism:
    
    Unfunded plan; retention benefits are paid out of
the Companys general assets.
 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-149596 and Form S-8 No. 333-91274) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Global Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan of our reports datedNovember 10, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Hewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Hewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries, included inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois 

November 10, 2009
#### DYKMAN, Plaintiff, v. KEENEY et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 15, 1898.)

Action by William N. Dykman, as receiver of the Commercial Bank, against Seth L. Keeney and others.

No opinion. Application for allowance of costs on appeal granted. See 42 N. Y. Supp. 488; 45 N. Y. Supp. 137; and 47 N. Y. Supp. 1134.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 1998 and the related Statement of Income for the
year-to-date ended June 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,322
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,271
<INVENTORY>                                    104,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               231,907
<PP&E>                                          56,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,070
<BONDS>                                         60,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          115,727<F2>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,863
<SALES>                                        362,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               362,293
<CGS>                                          216,989
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (201)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   690
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,339
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,103
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,236
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,236
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
<FN>
<F1>Bonds represents all long-term debt for senior notes.
<F2>Represents guaranteed preferred beneficial interests in the corporations
    junior subordinated debentures.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>