alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015407EN.01000202.xml

| 8.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 407/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 407/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7763 — TCCC/Cobega/CCEP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 407/04)

On 9 November 2015, 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 the 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 32015M7763. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7763. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Timothy Dynell George v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00128-CR

Trial court case number: 1431234

Trial court: 185th District Court of Harris County

On November 3, 2016, this Court had continued the abatement and remanded this 

appeal to the trial court for findings on whether appellant’s retained counsel, Robert T. 

Wallace, had abandoned this appeal, or whether appellant, Timothy Dynell George, was 

not indigent, but had not made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief such that he 

had abandoned this appeal, to allow this Court to proceed without briefs. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(b)(4). On November 8, 2016, the appeal hearing record was filed in this 

Court containing the trial court’s findings on the record that both appellant and his 

counsel have abandoned this appeal. Although the trial court noted that written findings 

of fact were being sent to this Court at a later date, the trial court’s findings on the record 

on abandonment are sufficient for reinstatement.

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to REINSTATE this appeal on the 

active docket. We will consider this appeal without briefs. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(b)(4). The Clerk of this Court will set this case at a later date for submission on the 

record, without briefs or argument, at the soonest practicable time.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Laura Carter Higley

  Acting individually 

Date: November 29, 2016
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Liberty Satellite & Technology, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-18167, 333-35454, and 333-48770) on Form S-8 of Liberty Satellite &
Technology, Inc. of our report relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Liberty Satellite & Technology, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001
and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive
income (loss), stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in
the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Liberty Satellite &
Technology, Inc.


                                    KPMG LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 29, 2002
**EXHIBIT 32.1**








**CERTIFICATION**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
      302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Limelight Media
      Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), David V. Lott, Chief Executive Officer and 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.








Date:
            November
                23, 2005
            By:
            /s/David
                V. LottDavid
                V. LottChief
                Executive Officer


This
        certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  A signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
        to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
10.4.5


 


FOURTH
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 hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.
Amendment. The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “$190,000” with “$290,000”
having previously been amended on July 1, 2020 from “$90,000 to “$190,000”.


 


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 January ___, 2021.





 


	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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7061

TRACEY TERRELL GRADY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LISA R. HALL, ALJ Judge, Disability Hearing Law Judge Office 

of the Disability Adjudication and Review, Raleigh, NC; 

MICHAEL SHARPE, Dr., Pitt Memorial Hospital Staff; JULIE 

SAWYER LITTLE, Vocational Expert; PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, 

Attorney Sarah J. Farber and Staff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,

District Judge. (5:16-ct-03026-FL)

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

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

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracey Terrell Grady, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tracey Terrell Grady appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Grady v. Hall, No. 5:16-ct-03026-FL 

(E.D.N.C. July 28, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016342EN.01000202.xml

| 17.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8188 — PostFinance/SIX/Twint)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 342/04)

On 13 September 2016, 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 32016M8188. 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 32016M8188. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2482 

To amend the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership Act of 2006 

to reauthorize the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2021 

Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership Act of 2006 to reauthorize the Champlain Valley 

National Heritage Partnership, 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 ‘‘Champlain Valley Na5 tional Heritage Partnership Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHAMPLAIN VALLEY NA7 TIONAL HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP. 

8 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

9 288(a) of the Champlain Valley National Heritage PartVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:18 Jul 28, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2482.IS S2482

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2482 IS

1 nership Act of 2006 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 

2 109–338; 120 Stat. 1824) is amended by striking ‘‘not 

3 more than a total’’ and all that follows through ‘‘any fiscal 

4 year’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

5 2022 through 2036’’. 

6 (b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 288(b) of the 

7 Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership Act of 

8 2006 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 109–338; 120 

9 Stat. 1824) is amended by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ and in10 serting ‘‘25 percent’’. 

11 (c) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—Section 289 of 

12 the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership Act 

13 of 2006 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 109–338; 

14 120 Stat. 1824) is amended by striking ‘‘on the date that 

15 is 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act’’ and 

16 inserting ‘‘on September 30, 2036’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Fein, Such, Kahn & Shephard, P.C., Westbury (Andrew M. Grenell of counsel), for respondent.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1711 [2019]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to October 8, 2019, and upon reading the November 4, 2019 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Zerdan], 173 AD3d 1602, 1603 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Serbinowski], 164 AD3d 1049, 1051 [2018]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effectively immediately.

Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEONARD THOMPSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 135 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2016, the Application for Leave to 

Exceed Word Limitations is DENIED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a compliant 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 30 days.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41106 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERNESTO ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-58-2

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ernesto Alvarado appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Alvarado challenges the district court’s finding that he did not meet the requirement of the “safety valve” provision, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5), that he truthfully provide the Government with all information and evidence he had concerning the offense. Because Alvarado was found not credible, the district court did not err in findingNo. 03-41106 -2- that Alvarado did not meet the safety valve criteria in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 which would qualify him for a two-level downward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6). See United States v. Solis , 169 F.3d 224, 226 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Flanagan , 80 F.3d 143, 145-47 (5th Cir. 1996)

. AFFIRMED.
DARRYL LAMAR WHITE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4314

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Darryl Lamar White, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jose Hernandez a/k/a Jose Irriaza, * From the 35th District Court

of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR22630.

Vs. No. 11-14-00313-CR * November 30, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 281 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 281

  To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease 
    Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on 
              firearms safety or gun violence prevention.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2021

 Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
Coons, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Casey, Mr. Brown, Ms. Warren, Mr. Blumenthal, 
  Mr. Murphy, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. King, Ms. 
Rosen, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Reed, Mr. Booker, Mr. Menendez, 
   Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. 
Sanders, Ms. Smith, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Warner, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Kaine, Mr. 
 Leahy, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Heinrich, and Mr. 
    Peters) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease 
    Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on 
              firearms safety or gun violence prevention.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gun Violence Prevention Research Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR RESEARCH BY CDC ON FIREARMS SAFETY OR GUN VIOLENCE 
              PREVENTION.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 
through 2027 for the purpose of conducting or supporting research on 
firearms safety or gun violence prevention under the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.). The amount authorized to be 
appropriated by the preceding sentence is in addition to any other 
amounts authorized to be appropriated for such purpose.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-4089 LARRY EUGENE LUCKEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-96-25-MU) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Larry Eugene Luckey appeals his conviction for arson in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 844 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We affirm. Luckey entered a conditional guilty plea to the charges against him, reserving his right to contest the validity of a prior confession on the ground that it was involuntary. The voluntariness of a confession is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Correll v. Thompson , 63 F.3d 1279, 1290 (4th Cir. 1995). A confession is voluntary if it is "the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception on the part of the police" which overbore the will of the accused. Poyner v. Murray , 964 F.2d 1404, 1413 (4th Cir. 1992). In determining whether a defendant's will is overborne, courts consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973). Upon consideration of the totality of the attendant circumstances, we conclude that the Government demonstrated the voluntariness of Luckey's confession by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lego v. Twomey , 404 U.S. 477, 489 (1972) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm Luckey's conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2