alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022326EN.01000201.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/2

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

(Case C-2/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Birth certificate issued by the Member State of birth of the child and designating two mothers in respect of that child - Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to transcribe that birth certificate into the national register of civil status - Transcription of that certificate being a prerequisite for the issuing of identity documents - National legislation of that Member State of origin not recognising the parenthood of persons of the same sex)

(2022/C 326/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Other parties: K.S., S.V.D., Prokurator Prokuratury Okręgowej w Krakowie M.C., Prokuratura Krajowa, Kierownik Urzędu Stanu Cywilnego w Krakowie

Operative part of the order

Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a minor child who is a citizen of the Union and whose birth certificate, issued by the authorities of a Member State, designates as that child’s parents two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national (i) is obliged to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring the prior transcription of a birth certificate of that child into the national register of civil status, and (ii) is obliged to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from another Member State that permits that same child to exercise without impediment, with each of those two persons, his or her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 4.1.2021.

---
Exhibit 32



<PAGE>



      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Royce Biomedical Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Kathy Jiang, the
President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of her 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 the Company.


                                By: /s/ Kathy Jiang
                                    Kathy Jiang, President and Principal
                                    Financial Officer




November 13, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
G. Chleboski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard G. Chleboski

------------------------
Richard G. Chleboski
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Evergreen Solar, Inc. and will be retained by Evergreen Solar, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 10.16
                                                                   -------------


                       John H. Duerden                  Dictaphone Corporation
                       Chairman and                     3191 Broadbridge Avenue
                       Chief Executive Officer          Stratford, CT 06497-2559

                                                        phone 203.381.7308
                                                        fax 203.381.7494

[DICTAPHONE LOGO]


April 11, 1997



Mr. Peter Tong
P.O. Box 30726
Long Beach, CA  90853

Dear Peter:

Somewhat  belatedly,  I have  the  pleasure  in  confirming  the  terms  of your
appointment to the Dictaphone Board of Directors:

     1.   You  will  be  paid  an  annual fee of  $25,000  which will cover your
          attendance at Board meetings.  A schedule for  the rest of the year is
          attached.

     2.   In addition, we  will  refund any travel expenses associated with your
          attendance at these meetings.

     3.   You  will  receive  options,  subject  to  Board  approval, to acquire
          10,000  shares  of  fully  vested  Dictaphone  Common  Stock  with  an
          exercise  price  of  $10 a share.  With the exception of the graduated
          vesting  schedule,  all of  the  terms  and  conditions to the plan as
          described   in   the  enclosed  "Management  Stock  Option  Plan"  and
          "Stockholder's Agreement" would apply, copies of   which  are enclosed
          for your review.

     4.   I  would  like to offer you a consultancy contract with the company at
          the  daily  rate of  $1,500.  Initially, I  would  expect that we will
          require  your  services  two  days  per  month,  depending  upon  your
          availability and our needs.


<PAGE>

Mr. Peter Tong
Page 2
April 11, 1997




It is  my  intention  to  establish  a  technical  sub-committee  of  the  Board
consisting of yourself,  Emil Jachmann and myself  together with two of our Vice
Presidents,  Ron  Elwell  and  Sue  White.  I  would  like  you  to  assume  the
Chairmanship of this group.

Peter,  I think  these  terms  should  meet your  requirements  and  reflect our
discussions.

I am delighted at your  decision to join the Board of Directors and look forward
to working with you to realize the potential of this company.

Sincerely,



/s/ John H. Duerden
John H. Duerden

JHD:sea
Enclosures
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 22, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 0000 8

- CV

Terry Lang, Appellant

v.

Robert Lang, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWIN, AND FIELD

DISM ISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on December 4, 2013

. Terry Lang

has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that

the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal

.

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. T ODD E RROL V ASSELL , a/k/a Eric No. 00-7815



#  Scott, a/k/a Corey Ryan, a/k/a Andre Nunes, a/k/a Michael Derwitt, a/k/a Chris Daley, a/k/a Tadd Vassell, Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-93-81, CA-00-42) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: November 26, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Marcia Gail Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Decatur Georgia; Charles Haden, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant.Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Todd Vassell appeals a district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. The standard of review of the denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions on appeal is abuse of discretion. United States v. Holland , 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000). In order to be entitled to reliefunder Rule 60(b), it is incumbent upon the movant to show: (1) mistake; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) that the judgment is void; (5) that the judgment has been discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. When the motion raises no new arguments, but merely requests the district court to reconsider a legal issue or to change its mind, relief is not authorized. United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982). Because we are limited to review of only the denial of the motion for reconsideration, and Vassell does nothing more than disagree with the court’s resolution of his § 2255 motion, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2 U NITED S TATES v. V ASSELL
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Masakazu Kurushima, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of California Steel Industries, Inc. (the Registrant);

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual
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;

4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:

(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 Registrant, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
Registrant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; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the Registrants most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: March 28, 2007



By:

/s/ Masakazu KurushimaMasakazu Kurushima,President and Chief Executive Officer
260 La. 697

#### Winnie A. ALBRITTON v. BOSSIER CITY HOSPITAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 52148.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1972.

In re: Winnie A. Albritton applying for writ of mandamus.

Application is denied. Inasmuch as the Response of the trial judge shows that the decision has now been handed down, the application is moot.
Jessica A. PolletAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 13, 2015

No. 04-15-00106-CV

Nell RAMEY,

Appellant

v.

Jessica A. POLLET,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-04119

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

A filing fee of $195.00 was due from Nell Ramey when she filed this appeal, but it was 

not paid. See TEXAS SUPREME COURT ORDER REGARDING FEES CHARGED IN THE SUPREME 

COURT, IN CIVIL CASES IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS, AND BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 13-9127, Aug. 16, 2013). The clerk of the court 

notified Ramey of this deficiency in a letter dated February 26, 2015. The fee remains unpaid. 

Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay—

at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by statute 

or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order 

that is just.

TEX. R. APP. P. 5. 

We therefore order appellant Nell Ramey, not later than March 23, 2015 to either (1) 

pay the $195.00 filing fee or (2) provide written proof to this court that she is indigent or 

otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule 

may proceed without advance payment of costs). If appellant fails to respond satisfactorily 

within the time ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.
_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32



<PAGE>



      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Royce Biomedical Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Kathy Jiang, the
President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of her 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 the Company.


                                       ROYCE BIOMEDICAL INC.



February 14, 2004                      By: /s/ Kathy Jiangq
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Kathy Jiang, President and Principal
                                           Financial Officer
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<Table>
<S>          <C>              <C>                    <C>
                              --------------------
                              SAND TECHNOLOGY INC.
                                     CANADA
                              --------------------
                                        |
                                        |
                                        |
                   ------------------------------------------
             100%  |              100%  |             100%  |
                   |                    |                   |
                   |                    |                   |
             ---------------   -------------------   ---------------
             SAND TECHNOLOGY                         SAND TECHNOLOGY
               CORPORATION     STSI LICENSING, LLC.  IRELAND LIMITED
                 DELAWARE          NEW JERSEY            IRELAND
             ---------------   -------------------   ---------------
                                                            |
                                                            |
                                                            |
                                                 ---------------------
                                                 |                    |
                                           100%  |                    |  100%
                                                 |                    |
                                         ---------------   -----------------------
                                         SAND TECHNOLOGY            SAND
                                           DEUTSCHLAND           TECHNOLOGY
                                              GmbH                 LIMITED
                                             Germany              (England)
                                         ---------------   -----------------------
</Table>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6142** 

MALCOLM MUHAMMAD , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. RANDALL C. MATHENA, Warden; JOHN D. WARATH, Assistant Warden; GEORGE HINKLE, Regional Administrator; P. SCARBERRY, Food Service Director; MR. BROCK, Assistant Food Service Director; LINDA SHEAR, Head Dietician for VADOC; CURTIS L. CARR, Regional Ombudsman; B. TAYLOR , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. ( 7:14

- cv - 00134

- JLK

- RSB )

Submitted : June 29, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before KING, WYNN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this ci rcuit.2 PER CURIAM: Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district cour t. Muhammad v. Mathena , No. 7:14

- cv - 00134

- JLK

- RSB (W.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2015) . We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 332 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 332

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
 investigations and studies by the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct in the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1994

Mr. McDermott submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
 investigations and studies by the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct in the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (hereinafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for--
            (1) procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
            (2) provision of assistance for members of professional 
        staff in obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of 
        such Act
there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not more 
than $100,000.
    (b) Not more than $45,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for consultant services referred to in paragraph (1) of 
such subsection and not more than $1,000 of such amount may be used for 
specialized training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1994, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1995.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```