alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

VASCO Data Security International, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-62829), Form S-3 (333-108793), and Form S-1 (333-124458) of VASCO Data Security International, Inc.and subsidiaries of our reports dated March 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports are included in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

March 11, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 51830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17251]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel, Lithium in Suicide Prevention.
    Date: September 22, 2005.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6144, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-7861, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e286918d8f8f879091a28f838b8ecc8c8b8acc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="593d2a3634343c2b2a193438303577373031773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health, National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: August 23, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-17251 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Stevie JOHNSON v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM.

No. 111A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Lorin Lapidus, Kevin Cartledge, Winston-Salem, for City of Winston-Salem.

Roderick McIver, for Johnson.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 656 S.E.2d 608.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant on the 11th day of March 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Defendant's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
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 Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership
(ERPOP) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Neithercut, Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential,
general partner of ERPOP, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 ERPOP.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David J. Neithercut                                
|David J. Neithercut                                    
|Chief Executive Officer of Registrants General Partner
|August 7, 2008
# C_2023083EN.01002702.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/27

---

Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Balaban v EUIPO — Shenzhen Stahlwerk Welding Technology (STAHLWERK)

(Case T-13/23)

(2023/C 83/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Okan Balaban (Bornheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Schaaf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Stahlwerk Welding Technology Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark STAHLWERK — EU trade mark No 11 554 201

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2022 in Case R 2060/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. TESSNEAR.

No. COA08-256.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Rutherford (06CRS53120).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN RE S.T.

No. COA08-448.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 16, 2008.

Certification Date October 6, 2008.

Appeal from Stanly (07JA75).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
# C_2023321EN.01002302.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 June 2023 — KCB, MB v BNP Paribas Bank Polska S.A.

(Case C-348/23, BNP Paribas Bank Polska)

(2023/C 321/28)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KCB, MB

Defendant: BNP Paribas Bank Polska S.A.

Question referred

Should Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation according to which:

| 1. | the consumer may not validly pursue claims against a trader arising from the inclusion of unfair terms in an agreement until he or she has declared that he or she does not agree to the unfair terms remaining in force, agrees to exclude their application, and understands and accepts the consequences thereof, potentially including the invalidity of the entire agreement, |
| --- | --- |

1.

the consumer may not validly pursue claims against a trader arising from the inclusion of unfair terms in an agreement until he or she has declared that he or she does not agree to the unfair terms remaining in force, agrees to exclude their application, and understands and accepts the consequences thereof, potentially including the invalidity of the entire agreement,

| 2. | the consumer may not validly claim recovery from the trader of sums unduly paid on the basis of the unfair terms until he or she has made the above declaration, |
| --- | --- |

2.

the consumer may not validly claim recovery from the trader of sums unduly paid on the basis of the unfair terms until he or she has made the above declaration,

| 3. | the consumer’s claim for recovery of sums unduly paid on the basis of the unfair terms does not become payable until he or she has made the above declaration, |
| --- | --- |

3.

the consumer’s claim for recovery of sums unduly paid on the basis of the unfair terms does not become payable until he or she has made the above declaration,

| 4. | the trader is not required to pay the consumer statutory interest for late performance until it has knowledge of the above declaration by the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

4.

the trader is not required to pay the consumer statutory interest for late performance until it has knowledge of the above declaration by the consumer?

---

(1)  
  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 515 

To provide a mechanism for the determination on the merits of the claims 

of claimants who met the class criteria in a civil action relating to 

racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture but who were 

denied that determination. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. BIDEN, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide a mechanism for the determination on the merits 

of the claims of claimants who met the class criteria 

in a civil action relating to racial discrimination by the 

Department of Agriculture but who were denied that 

determination. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pigford Claims Rem5 edy Act of 2007’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 515 IS

1 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION ON MERITS OF PIGFORD CLAIMS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any Pigford claimant who has not 

3 obtained a determination on the merits of a Pigford claim 

4 before the date of enactment of this Act may, in a civil 

5 action, obtain that determination. 

6 (b) INTENT OF CONGRESS AS TO REMEDIAL NATURE

7 OF SECTION.—It is the intent of Congress that this sec8 tion be liberally construed so as to effectuate its remedial 

9 purpose of giving a full determination on the merits for 

10 each Pigford claim denied that determination. 

11 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act— 

12 (1) the term ‘‘Pigford claimant’’ means an indi13 vidual who submitted, before the date of enactment 

14 of this Act, a late-filing request under section 5(g) 

15 of the consent decree in the case of Pigford v. Glick16 man, approved by the United States District Court 

17 for the District of Columbia on April 14, 1999; and 

18 (2) the term ‘‘Pigford claim’’ means a discrimi19 nation complaint, as defined by section 1(h) of that 

20 consent decree and documented under section 5(b) 

21 of that consent decree. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
BARTLETT MILLING COMPANY, L.P. v. WALNUT GROVE AUCTION and Realty Co., Inc., Rocky Creek Dairy, Inc., and Broker Dairy, Inc.

No. 451P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Peter J. Juran, Winston-Salem, for Bartlett Milling Co.

David G. Redding, Mark R. Kutny, Charlotte, for Walnut Grove Auction, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 665 S.E.2d 478.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of September 2008 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 421 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 421

            For the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 29, 2007

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            For the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any 
order, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Robert Liang and Alice Liang shall be deemed to 
have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1255).
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the applications for issuance of immigrant visas or the 
applications for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees 
within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
immigrant visas to Robert Liang and Alice Liang, the Secretary of State 
shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the current or 
subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
made available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under 
section 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)), as applicable.
                                 <all>
```
William L. BROWN v. Mark P. ELLIS.

No. 389PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 6, 2009.

Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, Lee M. Cecil, High Point, for Brown.

T. Keith Black, William F. Patterson, Jr., Greensboro, for Ellis.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of January 2009 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Denied. By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of January 2009."
EXHIBIT 32

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

      I,  Leonard  Armato,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report on Form  10-QSB/A of AVP, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of AVP, Inc.

      I, Andrew Reif,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB/A of AVP,  Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully  complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of AVP, Inc.

                                         By:/s/ Leonard Armato
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Leonard Armato
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                         By:/s/ Andrew Reif
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Andrew Reif
                                             Chief Financial Officer

July 27, 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAFAEL RUIZ-RUIZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50492

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01713-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2015** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Rafael Ruiz-Ruiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a

removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We

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

FILED

DEC 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Ruiz-Ruiz first contends that the district court abused its discretion by

denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under

U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. Contrary to Ruiz-Ruiz’s argument, the record reflects that the

district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on individualized

factors and not on a blanket policy of denying fast-track departures to a certain

group of defendants. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-

84 (9th Cir. 2015).

We likewise reject Ruiz-Ruiz’s argument that the district court’s denial of

the fast-track departure was improper because it interfered with the prosecutor’s

exercise of discretion in plea bargaining. See id. at 1183.

Finally, Ruiz-Ruiz argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in

light of the court’s denial of the fast-track departure and its focus on the need for

deterrence. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Ruiz-Ruiz’s immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v.

Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the

various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50492
# **Exhibit32.1**

# **OFFICER’SCERTIFICATION**

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the Chief Executive Officer of Western SizzlinCorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2007 and the financial statements contained therein, fullycomply with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q and thefinancial statements thereto fairly present, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of March 31,2007, and the period then ended.
| /s/ James C. Verney |   | Date: May 15, 2007 |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------|

 

----
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          ALL-AMERICAN SPORTPARK, INC.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the quarter ending June
30, 2007:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of All-
American SportPark, Inc.


Dated:  April 14, 2008



/s/ Ronald Boreta
Ronald Boreta
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and
Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All-American SportPark, Inc.
and will be retained by All-American SportPark, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
----

(2004/C 65 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   The Convention and the principle of non-discrimination

What is the view of the Commission on the inclusion of the principle of non-discrimination in the future constitution of the EU in the framework of the work of the Convention?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission feels that, in general terms, the principle of non-discrimination has been satisfactorily incorporated in the draft EU constitution drawn up by the Convention.

It would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the following points in particular:

However, the Commission regrets that the Convention did not subject Article III-5 in its entirety to qualified-majority voting. Maintaining the unanimity requirement in paragraph 1 of this article will create a significant obstacle in future to the adoption of the measures needed to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Moreover, the Commission is disappointed that racism and xenophobia are not included in the areas of crime listed in Article III-167 of Section 4 on judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Part III) of the draft constitution. It is a pity that this vital aspect of Union activity is becoming less visible and suffers from having no clear legal basis when these deplorable phenomena are still rife in both the present and the future Member States.

----