alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.

The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    - The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to Rule 15b9-1 (Exemption for Certain Exchange Members) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    - The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules and forms related to the offer and sale of securities pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 to implement Section 401 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

The duty officer determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

      ( print page 15858)    
Dated: March 20, 2015.

Brent J. Fields,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-06900 Filed 3-23-15; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit
10.4.3


 





SECOND
AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


Reference
is made to the Management Services Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Agreement”; capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement), dated as of May 12, 2018, by and between PAVmed Inc., a Delaware
corporation (“PAVmed”) and Lucid Diagnostics Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Customer”).


 


WHEREAS,
as set forth in Section 3(b) of the Agreement, the parties have considered in good faith an adjustment to the Service Fee and hereby
wish to amend the Agreement to reflect such adjustment as set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and adequacy of which are herby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.
Amendment. The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “$20,000” with “$90,000”
(reference Randy Brown employment) having previously been amended on March 1, 2019 from “$20,000 to “$60,000” (reference
David Wurtman hiring).


 


2.
Terms of Agreement. Except as expressly set forth in this amendment, the terms of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of June 5, 2019.


 





	AGREED
    AND ACCEPTED BY:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	PAVmed
    Inc.	 	Lucid
    Diagnostics Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Lishan Aklog, MD	 	 	/s/
    Lishan Aklog, MD
	Name:	Lishan
    Aklog, MD	 	Name:	Lishan
    Aklog, MD
	Title:	Chairman
    & CEO	 	Title:	Executive
    Chairman
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 219 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the amount of 

certain payments during the emergency period resulting from the 

COVID–19 pandemic, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2021 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase 

the amount of certain payments during the emergency 

period resulting from the COVID–19 pandemic, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Aid and Attendance 

5 Support Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 219 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE OF AMOUNT OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT 

2 OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PAYMENTS DURING 

3 EMERGENCY PERIOD RESULTING FROM 

4 COVID–19 PANDEMIC. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—During the covered period, the 

6 Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall apply each of the fol7 lowing provisions of title 38, United States Code, by sub8 stituting for each of the dollar amounts in such provision 

9 the amount equal to 125 percent of the dollar amount that 

10 was in effect under such provision on the day before the 

11 date of the enactment of this Act: 

12 (1) Subsections (l), (m), (r), and (t) of section 

13 1114. 

14 (2) Paragraph (1)(E) of section 1115. 

15 (3) Subsection (c) of section 1311. 

16 (4) Subsection (g) of section 1315. 

17 (5) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (d) of 

18 section 1521. 

19 (6) Paragraphs (2) and (4) of subsection (f) of 

20 section 1521. 

21 (b) TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS.—Any amount payable 

22 to an individual under subsection (a) in excess of the 

23 amount otherwise in effect shall be in addition to any 

24 other benefit or any other amount payable to that indi25 vidual under any provision of law referred to in subsection 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 219 IS

1 (a) or any other provision of law administered by the Sec2 retary of Veterans Affairs. 

3 (c) COVERED PERIOD.—In this section, the covered 

4 period is the period that begins on the date of the enact5 ment of this Act and ends 60 days after the last day of 

6 the emergency period (as defined in section 1135(g)(1) of 

7 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b–5(g)(1))) result8 ing from the COVID–19 pandemic. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2015042EN.01000101.xml

| 6.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 February 2015

(2015/C 42/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1410 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,98 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4456 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74820 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4579 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0587 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6370 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,708 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,24 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1655 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4133 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7898 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4616 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4290 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8455 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5428 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5359 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 243,16 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,9830 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1307 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,7128 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 389,78 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0605 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,343 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 76,2700 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,213 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1238 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8862 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,4436 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1410

JPY

Japanese yen

133,98

DKK

Danish krone

7,4456

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74820

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4579

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0587

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6370

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,708

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,24

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1655

RON

Romanian leu

4,4133

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7898

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4616

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4290

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8455

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5428

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5359

KRW

South Korean won

1 243,16

ZAR

South African rand

12,9830

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1307

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,7128

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 389,78

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0605

PHP

Philippine peso

50,343

RUB

Russian rouble

76,2700

THB

Thai baht

37,213

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1238

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8862

INR

Indian rupee

70,4436

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000773 31-DEC-2014 10:39 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6922

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE MARTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00021-IMK-MJA-1; 1:13-cv-00149-IMKMJA)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

(1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on most of the claims raised in Martin’s 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion; and (2) denying relief on one 

specific aspect of Martin’s ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim on which the court held an evidentiary hearing. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 
3

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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of-- ) 

) 

eTec Engineering & Construction Ltd. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912UM-14-C-0027 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60667 

Song Yong Eui, Esq. 

Chung Jin Law Offices 

Seoul, Korea 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Robert M. Sundberg, Esq. 

Paul L. Huhtanen, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Far East 

Seoul, Korea 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

By email dated 7 July 2016, appellant appealed from an alleged contracting 

officer's final decision (COFD), dated 9 May 2016, on appellant's alleged 25 April 2016 

claim. On 6 August 2016, the government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to stay the appeal pending issuance of a COFD. In its 

motion, the government alleged that appellant's 25 April 2016 submission was not a 

certified claim (gov't mot. at 14-18), but that appellant had submitted a certified claim, 

dated 5 July 2016, which was then being considered by the contracting officer (gov't mot. 

at 18-21 ). Following a conference call, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings in this 

appeal pending issuance of a COFD on appellant's 5 July 2016 claim. 

The parties subsequently filed a joint status report, dated 14 November 2016, in 

which they jointly requested dismissal of the appeal. In their joint status report, the parties 

explained that the government had provided appellant with the COFD on 11 November 

2016 and that, "[ u ]pon a dismissal by the Board, the Appellant will submit a new appeal 

based on the [COFD]." (Bd. corr. ltr. dtd. 14 November 2016) Accordingly, 
this appeal is dismissed from the Board's docket without prejudice. See TTF, L.L.C., 

ASBCA No. 58494, 13 BCA ~ 35,343 at 173,464. 

Dated: 23 November 2016 

~rμ- MARK N. STEMPLE 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60667, Appeal of eTec Engineering 

& Construction Ltd., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# CA2014209EN.01000901.xml

| 4.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 209/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 209/9

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 209 A/03

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | |
| 188 | |
| 195 | |
| 207 | |
| 209 | (DE/EN/FR) |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

185

186

188

195

207

209

(DE/EN/FR)

---
UNITED STATES OFAMERICA \ DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION Washington, DC 20591 November3, 2015



### Request for Section 333 exemption en r; ( 

## .

Nathan Crozier petitions for a Grant of Exemption so that he can conduct aerial videography and cinematography to augment real estate listing videos. Specifically I request an exemption from part 21, subpart H; and Sections 45.23(b),61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121,91 .151 (a), 91 .203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1 ), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). These flights would be conducted using a 3DR Solo with attached GoPro.Nathan maintains aclass 4flight physical and was trained as a UAVoperator bythe Army. To ensure I do not interfere with any other manned aircraft I will notfly above 400' orwithin 5 miles of any airport unless I am in radio contact with the control tower. To ensure all know of my presence I will post all flights on Notams and will advise all local residence of impending flights. Onthe day ofthe flight I will post signage indicating that a UAVflight is in the immediate area. As for the actual UAV operation I will complete a preflight safety check ofthe UAS that will ensure all components ofthe system work as required. The only operator ofthe aircraftwill be by Nathan who has completed FAA ground school and flies UAVs forthe Army National Guard. Over 100 hours have been achieved on the solo to ensure proficiency in flight. Granting this exemption to Nathan would allow meto provide aerial photography at a much lower cost than manned aircraft. Small UAS

_ wiiLpose no.thr:eauothe,public..given its small size and lackof combustible fuel when compared to larger manned aircraft, Operation ofthis UASwill minimize ecological damage and promote economic growth by providing information to companies looking to relocate or build.

Operator 301 Jewel Drive Unit4 Ames, lA50010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,698,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                   248,800
<INVENTORY>                                  5,925,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,006,800
<PP&E>                                       1,276,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 239,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,531,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,926,100
<BONDS>                                      1,206,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,100
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,357,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,531,300
<SALES>                                     29,646,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,646,100
<CGS>                                       21,736,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,249,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (53,300)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             115,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,599,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   584,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,014,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,014,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 5 EPA SANITIZED
 

 

 

 

Page 2 of 5
 

 

Page 3 of 5 EPA SANTIZIED
 

Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5
#### Eaton vs. Tallmadge and another.

A cause noticed for argument in this court *before*the return of the clerk of the court below is made, will be stricken from the calendar on motion of the other side.

*443ERROR to the Circuit Court for *Fond du Lao*County.

*R. P. Eaton,*plaintiff in error, in person.

*E S. Bragg, contra.*

Cole, J.

A motion is made to strike this cause from the calendar because it was noticed for argument by the plaintiff in error before the return of the clerk was made. *We*think the motion must be granted. A cause should not be noticed for argument before the return has been made; because if it is, it is liable to be stricken from the calendar upon motion of the other side.

*By the Court.*— Motion granted.
# Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA

- 2013

- 0797

Directorate Identifier: 2013NM007AD

767

- 21

- 0245

--- 4/16/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
# C_2014219EN.01000102.xml

| 11.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7249 — CVC/Parexgroup)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 219/02

On 13 June 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7249. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7249. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FRANCIS SCHMINCKE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 289 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.