alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.03**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Kenneth L. Londoner, certify that:

 

|    | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of BioSig Technologies, Inc.; |
|--------------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|    | 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; |
|--------------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: May 15, 2019      |    |
|-------------------------|--------------|
|               |    |
| /s/ KENNETH L. LONDONER |    |
| Kenneth L. Londoner     |    |
| Chief Executive Officer |    |
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 12 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 12

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
                       flag of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2007

    Mr. Murtha introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
                       flag of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23494]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
    Title: Application for NATO International Competitive Bidding.
    OMB Control Number: 0694-0128.
    Form Number(s): BIS-4023P.
    Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently 
approved information collection).
    Burden Hours: 40.
    Number of Respondents: 40.
    Average Hours per Response: 1 hour.
    Needs and Uses: All U.S. firms desiring to participate in the NATO 
International Competitive Bidding (ICB) process under the NATO Security 
Investment Program (NSIP) must be certified as technically, financially 
and professionally competent. The U.S. Department of Commerce is the 
agency that provides the Statement of Eligibility which certifies these 
firms. Any such firm seeking certification is required to submit a 
completed Form BIS-4023P along with a current annual financial report 
and a resume of past projects in order to become certified and placed 
on the Consolidated List of Eligible Bidders.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, (202) 395-3123.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54301c2d3a313f14303b377a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cf8d4e5f2f9f7dcf8f3ffb2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Jasmeet Seehra, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2e8c3d1cfc7c7d6fde98cfdf1c7c7cad0c3e2cdcfc08cc7cdd28cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="632902100e0606173c284d3c3006060b1102230c0e014d060c134d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>, or by fax to (202) 
395-5167.

    Dated: September 16, 2010.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-23494 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30845 Conference Calendar

__________________ FRANKLIN D. FRAZIER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHARMAGNE PADUA, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-2272

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Franklin D. Frazier, Jr., filed a complaint alleging that Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney, Charmagne Padua, committed the crime of filing false public records, in violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:133. Frazier alleges that, in response to a habeas petition he had filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Padua's brief to the district court misquoted a state statute governingNo. 95-30845 -2- habitual offender law and that she thus filed a false public record. A complaint brought IFP may be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Booker v. Koonce , 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). Section 1915(d) dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Moore v. Mabus , 976 F.2d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 1992). Frazier's attempt to have Padua somehow charged for a violation of state law likely would have no merit even if the statute had been misquoted. Here, there was no misstatement, as article 61 of Louisiana's Criminal Code states:

Subject to the supervision of the attorney general, as provided in Article 62, the district attorney has entire charge and control of every criminal prosecution instituted or pending in his district, and determines whom, when, and how he shall prosecute. La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 61 (West 1991). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Frazier's action as frivolous. Although Frazier has not been warned about frivolous appeals, see Moody v. Baker , 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 985 (1988), the instant appeal is plainly frivolous. Accordingly, we warn Frazier that sanctions will be imposed for any future frivolous appeals. APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. W. T. Grant.

(No. 1091, Op. Book No. 2, p. 354.)

Appeal from Montgomery County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 783. *Appeal bond; need not be signed by appellant.*The statute does not require that the appellant shall sign the appeal bond. The execution of the bond by the sure*431ties is sufficient, the principal being as effectually bound by the judgment without signing the bond as he could have been by it. [Shelton v. Wade, 4 Tex. 148; Lindsay v. Price, 33 Tex. 280.]

February 26, 1881.

§ 78 4. *Jurisdiction; counterclaim.*Where the counterclaim pleaded by the defendant in a suit before a justice of the peace Avas for more than $100, it was held on appeal that the counterclaim was the amount in controversy, and conferred jurisdiction. The appeal from the justice’s to the county court Avas improperly dismissed.

Reversed and remanded.
#### F F. Bradway v. L. G. Clipper.

(No. 2441, R. Book No. 4, p. 269.)

Appeal from Milam County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 306. *Motion to dismiss appeal in county court.*-*On appeal from justice’s to county court, where a motion to dismiss was made upon the following grounds: 1. Because the bond misdescribes the judgment. 2. The bond has but one surety, who was also a principal in the judg*125ment appealed from. 3. The transcript and original papers were not filed in the county court within the proper time, — which motion was overruled, *held*error, the record, sustaining the truth of each ground of the motion. [Art. 1639, Rev. Stats.; McGarrah v. Burney, *4*Tex. 287; Hollis v. Border, 10 Tex. 278; Smith v. Cheatham, 12 Tex. 37; Horton v. Bodine, 10 Tex. 280; Burch v. Corp. of Bastrop, 38 Tex. 80; Scranton v. Bell, 35 Tex. 413; Rev. Stats. art. 1641.]

October *4,*1882.

Eeversed and dismissed.
News United States Air Force
 Biomedical sciences corps Lt Cols will not meet ESERBPublished April 30, 2014
                        
                        By Debbie Gildea
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Biomedical sciences corps, or BSC, lieutenant colonels originally slated to meet the June 16 enhanced selective early retirement board, or ESERB, will not meet the board, Air Force Personnel Center officials said April 30.
ESERB is one of several fiscal year 2014 force management programs that have been or will be implemented during fiscal 2014 to help achieve manpower and force structure goals.
BSC lieutenant colonels will not meet the board because Air Force ongoing voluntary separation and retirement programs have achieved established goals in that career field and grade, said Lt. Col. Rick Garcia, the AFPC retirements and separations branch chief. As a result, senior raters are not required to prepare retention recommendation forms, or RRFs, for these officers.
Officers who are still scheduled to meet the board include active duty, retirement-eligible majors in the Line of the Air Force, LAF-judge advocate, chaplain, nurse corps, BSC and MSC.
For those officers, senior raters as of the Jan. 17 accountability date will prepare a retention recommendation form for each of their eligible officers, and will provide those officers with completed copies of their RRFs by May 16.
Eligible officers who do not want to meet the retention board can apply for voluntary force management programs, and if approved must retire by Jan. 1, 2015. Voluntary retirement applications are due to AFPC by May 16.
For more information about ESERB and other force management programs, go to myPers. Select "search all components" in the keyword drop down menu and enter "ESERB" or "Active Duty: FY14 Force Management Programs" in the search window.ESERB 



force management 



Biomedical sciences corp 



Lt. Col. 



enhanced selective early retirement board Related Links
        MyPers website
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30739

Summary Calendar

 

ERIC C. HAHN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Robert E. Rubin, Secretary,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(93-CV-3820-M)

 

January 17, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Hahn appeals the dismissal of his employment

discrimination suit. We affirm substantially for the reasons given

by the magistrate judge and the district court. Hahn’s claims for

failure to promote are time-barred because they were filed a full

214 days after the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations issued its
2

ruling on those claims. Each of his remaining claims fails because

it was not administratively exhausted, because it does not amount

to an adverse personnel action, or because it does not constitute

an objectively hostile or abusive work environment as a matter of

law.

AFFIRMED.
#### Walker & Crook’s Admr’s v. A. J. Taul.

(No. 12, Op. Book No. 1, p. 240.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 28. *Administration; suit on rejected claim.*Art. 1311, Pas. Dig., requires that suit shall be instituted on a claim rejected by an administrator or executor within three months after the date of its rejection, and not thereafter.

§ 29. *Statute of limitations.*Constitution of 1869 suspended all statutes of limitations in civil suits up to March 30, 1870. *Held,*that this provision had no application to actions on claims against an estate which had been rejected by an administrator.

§ 30. Art. 1311, Pas. Dig., which requires suit to be brought within three months upon a rejected claim, is not properly a statute of limitation which would be suspended by the constitutional provision.

The authentication of the claim against an estate of a deceased person, and the presentation of that claim for allowance and approval, are to all intents and purposes the commencement of the prosecution of that claim, and if, on prosecution, the same be allowed and approved, it becomes a judgment against the estate; but if it be rejected, then art. 1311 gives a further remedy very much in the nature of an appeal, upon condition that the same be prosecuted within three months. [37 Tex. 31.]

§ 31. *Statutes of limitations do not embrace appeals and writs of error.*Statutes providing for appeals and writs of error to the supreme court have been decided not to be statutes of limitations. [Cunningham v. Perkins, *2028 Tex. 488; State v. Kroner, 2 Tex. 492; Regan v. Flint, 30 Tex. 384; Shelly v. Southwick, 31 Tex. 125.]

April 30, 1877.

§ 32. *liecalling a witness or introducing other evidence sifter argument commenced.*The recalling á witness or admitting evidence after argument has commenced is within the discretion of the court whenever, in his judgment, the testimony offered is material to the ends of justice.

The practice should rarely be allowed of recalling a witness, and it should never be permitted where a party to the suit proposes to take the stand as a witness in order to materially and substantially change his former testimony.

Beversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   HONORING MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., AUDREY NELSON COMMUNITY 
            DEVELOPMENT ACHIEVEMENT AWARD RECIPIENT FOR 1995

                                 ______

                          HON. CARRIE P. MEEK

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 18, 1995
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay 
tribute to a truly outstanding community-based organization, Miami 
Capital Development of Miami, FL.
  Miami Capital Development, Inc., was recently selected in a national 
competition as one of only six recipients of the National Community 
Development Association's prestigious Audrey Nelson Community 
Development Achievement Award for exemplary uses of community 
development block grant-funded projects.
  Miami Capital Development, Inc., serves as the lending arm of the 
city of Miami. Created in 1980, it provides financial assistance at 
below-market interest rates to new and existing, small and minority-
owned businesses located within underserved areas of the city of Miami 
and Dade County. It is a public-purpose lending agency that provides 
financial assistance that stimulates economic development and helps 
create and retain jobs for low- and moderate-income people.
  I know that my colleagues join me in congratulating Executive 
Director Pablo Perez-Cisneros and his staff for a job well done.

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 European home appliance contracts projected to save $85,000 annuallyPublished Feb. 12, 2021
                        
                        By Joe Bela
                        
                        
                        Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-LACKLAND, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The letting of nine European household appliance contracts by two Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center organizations at **Ramstein Air Base**, Germany, is expected to save the Air Force roughly $85,000 annually.
The collaborative effort between AFIMSC’s Detachment 4 and the Air Force Installation Contracting Center’s 764th Enterprise Sourcing Squadron will provide **United States Air Forces in Europe** installations with brand-name European household appliances for on- and off-base housing residents in the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy.
Valued at $45.4 million combined, the 10-year Standardized European Household Appliance Contract is expected to net savings by improving customer service and providing a common base of parts and maintenance for appliances at USAFE installations in these countries.
“In the past, procurements for appliances were done at base level and were typically low-bid driven, which has caused a wild mix of different brands and models (in our) inventory over the past years,” said Hans Schulz, AFIMSC Det. 4 housing management specialist and requirements owner representative for the contract.
“Low-cost items are usually not of the same quality as brand name products,” Schulz added. “To maintain the expected life cycle for all these appliances, repairs often become necessary. Parts availability for the different brands and models, and extended downtimes for repairs triggered the need for a (more standardized) inventory of quality products.”
Quality products that last longer are most preferred along with local repair parts availability that supports quick turnaround times,” Schulz said.
“To encourage competition among vendors and generate cost savings for the Air Force, contract requirements solicited full and open competition,” said Jennifer Schneider, 764 ESS contracting officer and team lead for the initiative. “The small as well as larger companies could provide quotes.”
Under conditions of the contract, the delivery period for the 10-year contract began in December, and the first contracting office already started its ordering process,” she said.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Ramstein Air Base 



Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center 



AFIMSC 



USAFE 



Standardized European Household Appliance Contract 



764th Enterprise Sourcing Squadron 



AFMC 



Air Force Materiel Command 



U.S. Air Forces in Europe
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Senior Enlisted Summit, Reapers at RIMPAC, F-22s in PolandPublished Aug. 19, 2022
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Saomy Sabournin
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)   --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, international senior enlisted leaders from around the world come together to focus on winning the high-end fight, the MQ-9 Reaper makes its debut in the Rim of the Pacific exercise, and F-22s from Alaska are in Poland to conduct Air Shielding missions for NATO. (Hosted by Staff Sgt. Benjamin Cooper)



For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- SELIS 22: CMSAF hosts largest international DAF engagement****- Mission complete: AF MQ-9s close out successful RIMPAC exercise****- U.S. F-22s safeguard Alliance territory**USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV
#### J. M. Daugherty v. Jacob Strauss & Co.

(No. 1605, Op. Book No. 2, p. 42.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 892. *Partnership; bankruptcy.*Bankruptcy puts an end to a partership by operation of law. The bank-*509rapt ceases to have any power or dominion over his property and effects in the partnership, and it is transferred to his assignee, who succeeds to all his rights and interest therein. The assignee is deemed a tenant in common with the other partners in all such property and effects, subject to the rights and claims of the other parties. [Story on Part. 515; Amsinck v. Bean, 22 Wall. 403; Wilkins v. Davis, 15 N. B. R. 64.] The bankruptcy of necessity disposes o£ all the bankrupt’s property, and one part of that is his interest in any partnership firm; and each member of a copartnership is liable as well for the debts of the partnership as • his individual debts.. It is a necessary result that the creditors of a partnership may, and indeed must, prove up their claims against his estate in bankruptcy in accordance with the requirements of the bankrupt law, if they would share in the distribution of his assets, and so it has been held in numerous cases. [In re Price, 3 Dillon, 295; Stephenson v. Jackson, 9 N. B. R. 255; Law v. Richards, 11 N. B. R. 590; Blum on Bankruptcy. 267, 268; Bump on Bankruptcy, 243; 1 Dillon, 33; In re Downing, 3 N. B. R. 753.]

§ 893. *Bankruptcy; discharge in; effect of.*A discharge in bankruptcy of a member of a copartnership releases him not only from his individual debts, but from the debts of the firm. His individual bankruptcy operates as well upon his liability for the copartnership indebtedness as upon his individual indebtedness, and his certificate of discharge is pleadable in bar of either. [Rev. Stats. U. S. §§ 5714, 5712, 5718; In re Downiug, 3 N. B. R. 753.] It has been settled for more than a century and a half, that if one member of a firm become banknipt and obtain his discharge, he is released from all his joint debts and liabilities. [Wilkins v. Davis, 15 N. B. R. 62; Rayl v. Lapham, 15 N. B. R. 509; Black v. Blazo, 117 Mass. 17; Rev. Stats. U. S. sec. 5719; Way v. Howe, 108 Mass. 502.]

§ 894. *Discharge in bankruptcy; conclusiveness of.*The authority to set aside and annul a discharge in bank*510ruptcy conferred upon the federal courts is incompatible with the exercise of the same power by a state court, and the former is paramount. [Bump on Bankruptcy, 774.] Therefore, whether it was regular to grant the bankrupt a discharge from all debts and claims against him or not, or whether it was incumbent upon him to report in his schedule all his assets and all his liabilities, or whether he was guilty of fraudulent concealment of his property, are matters which were within the jurisdiction of the court which granted his discharge, and cannot be reopened or again inquired into by a state court.

May 6, 1880.

Reversed and remanded.