alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 431.1 - Applicability    **Parent topic:** PART 431 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES431.101 Objectives.       (a) The SPE is designated as the official authorized to give advance approval of an individual deviation concerning cost principles.          (b) The SPE is designated as the official authorized to give advance approval of a class deviation concerning cost principles after coordination with the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council.          (c) Requests for advance approval of class deviations concerning cost principles must be submitted to the SPE through the HCA.
#### In the Matter of Richard Gaines et al., Appellants, v. Board of Elections for the County of Nassau et al., and Lawrence Elovich, Respondents.

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating petitioners herein as candidates in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for the Party position of County Committeeman for the 6th Election District of the 14th Assembly District of the County of Nassau, and for incidental relief, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 4, 1969, which denied the application and dismissed the petition in the proceeding. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, respondent Elovieh had standing to object to the petitions for the reasons stated in *Matter of Elovich*v. *Meisser*(32 A D 2d 795). However, the 11 valid signatures on the Gaines set of petitions cannot be added to the 26 valid signatures on the Gaines and Shapiro set of petitions because the petitions for Gaines are not consecutively numbered. Since 28 valid signatures were required to nominate a candidate for member of the Democratic County Committee from the 6th Election District of the 14th Assembly District, the petitions of neither candidate are valid. Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur. Beldoek, P. J., and Rabin, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and grant the petition, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, Elovieh had no standing to object to the designating petitions (see dissenting memorandum in *Matter of Elovich*v. Meisser, 32 A D 2d 795).
Opinion issued July 2, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 9
- 0 00 63
- CV

——————————— IN RE SAFECO INSURANCE CO MPANY OF INDIANA , Relator

Original Proceeding o n Petition f or Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Safeco Insurance Co mpany of Indiana , filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent district judge to rule on its two pending
motion s to compel appraisal and for summary judgment, and real party in interest2

(“RPI”) J. Douglas Sutter ’s pending motion for final summary judgment , in the underlying proceeding

. 1 This Court requested and received a response . T h is Court’s June 14, 2019 Order granted relator ’s emergency motion to stay the underlying trial court proceedings and trial setting, pending disposition of this petition. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.10(a). Then on June 27, 2019, RPI Sutter filed a motion to reconsider lifting this Court’s stay. RPI Sutter contends that the petition is now moot and the stay should be lifted because the respondent signed three orders on June 17, 2019, denying rela tor’s two pending motion s and RPI Sutter’s pending motion, and he attached copies of those orders.
B ecause the respondent has since ruled on the pending motions challenged by relator’s petition, this Court no longer ha s jurisdiction to grant relief because the petition has been rendered moot. See Tex. A&M Univ.

– Kingsville v. Yarbrough , 347 S.W.3d 289, 290

– 91 (Tex. 2011) ; In re Jackson , No. 01

– 12

– 00020

– CV, 2012 WL 405707, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 9, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismi ssing mandamus petition as moot after relator received relief requested). Accordingly, we grant RPI’s Sutter’s motion to reconsider lifting the stay, lift this Court’s stay, and dismiss the petition as moot.

1 The underlying case is J. Douglas Sutter v. Safeco Insurance Company , Cause No. 20 1 7

- 54046 , pending in the 15 2nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Robert K. Schaffer presiding.3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          18,592
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     48,365
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           9,463
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             9,448
<LOANS>                                        363,368
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 458,210
<DEPOSITS>                                     390,288
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,877
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,065
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,515
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 458,210
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 25,270
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,756
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   496
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,522
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,279
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,722
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,800
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      813
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  (2)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,963
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,204
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,204
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                        541
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,650
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,654
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,075
<RECOVERIES>                                       615
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,447
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,447
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly annual report on Form 10-QSB (the "Form
10-QSB") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, of Universal Detection
Technology (f/k/a/ Pollution Research and Control Corp.) (the "Issuer").

I, Jacques Tizabi, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer certify that to the
best of my knowledge:

(i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
     78o(d)); and

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Issuer.

Dated: November 18, 2003.



                                        /s/ JACQUES TIZABI
                                        ----------------------------
                                        NAME: JACQUES TIZABI



                                       26
# Subpart 1431.1 - Applicability

**Parent topic:**PART 1431 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

## 1431.101 Objectives.

Individual deviations concerning cost principles and procedures shall require the approval of the cognizant Assistant Secretary, with further redelegation authorized. Redelegation is limited to the BPC.
(115 App. Div. 82)

#### WALSH v. CHURCH et al. SAME v. McWILLIAMS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 9, 1906.)

Elections—Primary Law—Variance Between Oral Proclamation and Written Statement of Result.

The oral proclamation of the result required by the primary election law does not control, when it and the written statement of the result of the canvass varies.

Appeal from Special Term.

Proceedings relative to a primary election by John J. Walsh against James S. Church and others and against John T. McWilliams and others. From certain orders, appeals are taken. Reversed and remitted.

Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Ernest P. Seelman, for appellant.

R. Percy Chittenden, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

At the argument the learned counsel for the respondent said that, so far as the record of this appeal was concerned, he relied upon the proposition that the oral proclamation of the result required by the primary law must control when it and the written statement of the- result of the canvass varied. We are of opinion that this contention is not sound. The proclamation is not the result, but *765merely an oral public statement of the result. An error in the proclamation does not in effect change the result, so as to accord with that error.

The substantial question turns upon the ballots cast at the election. We are of opinion that the evidence at Special Term is not of sufficient probative force to establish such fraud, or. such falsity, or such error in the written statement of the canvass as warrants the orders now before us for review. At the same time, we think that the Special Term has jurisdiction upon such an application as was made in this case to set aside the statement of canvass made by the inspectors to adjudge the true result of the primary election, to direct the inspectors to reconvene forthwith and to make and to file with the custodian of primary records a statement showing the result of the primary election to be as adjudged, to nullify the certificates of election, and to direct-the issue of certificates of election to the candidates lawfully entitled to them. In any event this may be done before the candidates in possession of the original certificates have actually entered into possession of their respective offices. Though the time is short, it is sufficient for an adjudication of this matter upon the merits.

The orders are reversed, and the applications are remitted to the Special Term for such further proceedings therein as may seem advisable to either of the parties.
162 So.2d 14

#### Maurice N. BIRDWELL and Jack Burrow v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 47181.

April 1, 1964.

In re: Fred Crump and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Claiborne. 160 So.2d 246; 160 So.2d 249.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.

McCALEB, J.,

is of the opinion that a writ should be granted on the question of quantum of damages in view of the decision in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239, 158 So.2d 149.
619.870 Acquisition of technical

requirements.

(a) Offering letter. When a decision has been made by OSDBU and the contracting officer to process

an acquisition through the SBA under the 8(a) program, the contracting activity shall promptly send

to the applicable SBA office a letter offering the acquisition to the SBA, with an information copy to

the Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Specialist. The offering letter should transmit the

statement of work, purchase description, technical data package, or specifications and such other

information deemed necessary by the contracting officer.

(b) The contracting officer has greater latitude in holding discussions with the business concerns

being considered under an 8(a) program acquisition if under the $4 million competitive threshold for

8(a) competition than under a non-8(a) program acquisition. Informal assessments of potential 8(a)

sources shall be within the parameters of 13 CFR 124.308(g). The technical evaluation must be

carefully reviewed to determine if any source declared to be unacceptable is capable of being made

acceptable.

Parent topic: Subpart 619.8—Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a)

Program)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2941 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2941

            To suspend temporarily the duty on Magenta 377.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2006

  Mr. Carper introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on Magenta 377.

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

SECTION 1. MAGENTA 377.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.32.08      Magenta 377         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (provided for in                                                   31/2009
                         subheading
                         3215.19.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### City of Syracuse et al., Appellants, v Onondaga County et al., Respondents. Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs; 2.3 Acres of Land in the City of Syracuse, N.Y., Defendant and Third-Party Defendant.

Decided September 4, 2007

Pursuant to the August 13, 2007 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit withdrawing its certification of questions accepted by the Court of Appeals on October 24, 2006, certified questions marked withdrawn *[see*7 NY3d 863].

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
AD-Talon | Action Drone USA

http://www.actiondroneusa.com/ [7/10/2015 9:24:45 AM] Office Phone: 1-619-870-1796 Mailing Address: 2127 Olympic Pkwy, Suite 1006 #224, Chula Vista, CA, 91915, United States Office Address: By appointment only. For appointments, please email us: info@actiondroneusa.com

Powered by ActionDroneUSA. The Logo is copyright ©ActionDroneUSA. All rights reserved. 

### TERMS & CONDITIONS PRIVACY POLICY SHOP VIDEOS NEWS CONTACT CART 

### Your shopping cart is empty

A D

- T a l o n K i t $390.00 A D

- T a l o n A R T F $450.00

1/1 

## FLYING PLATFORM: AD-TALON

The AD-Talon is the perfect training quadcopter. This 450mm model can fit 10" propellers with a 5300 mAh battery - giving flight times longer than most drones this size. Practice your pilot flying skills or scout terrain before launching your AD-1. Perfect DIY drone for beginner and intermediate pilots!



## AD-TALON SPECIFICATIONS:

General Characteristics:

Base dimensions (no propellers)

Length: 305 mm/12.01 in. Width: 312mm/12.28 in. Height: 135 mm/5.31 in.
Base Dimensions (with propellers`)

Length: 565 mm/22.24 in. Width: 620 mm/24.41 in. Height:135 mm/5.31 in.

Ground Clearance

62.0 mm/2.44 in.
Almost Ready to Fly (ARTF) weight

868.0 g/1.91 lbs
Ready to Fly (RTF) weight

1668.0 g/3.68 lbs *** ***may vary depending on camera, FPV, battery, and equipment setup on platform. 

### Flight Details:

Top Speed

50 MPH
Flight Time (Fully Loaded) AUW = 1668

20 Min (regular flying) 25 Min (Hover)
Safety Functions

Return to home option
Operating Distance

Up to 1km 

### ARTF Component Details:

Motors

4 x 810kV brushless motors
Electronic speed controller (ESC) and power distribution

25A-rated 4-in-1 ESC.
Propellers

4 x 10 in. x4.5 ABS Plastic Propellers 

### RTF-Added Component Details:

RTF-supplied flight controller(s)

XAircraft MiniX multirotor flight controller Naza M-V2 Naze32 multirotor flight controller (TBA)
Recording Camera

Mobius Action Camera Pilot Camera for FPV
Battery

4S 5300 mAh 35C LiPo 

## HOME SHOP PARTS & ACCESSORIES VIDEOS CONTACT TRADE IN PROGRAM BECOME A DEALER

DOWNLOADS Cart: 0



## QUADCOPTER & MULTIROTORS FOR AERIAL VIDEOS. TAKE YOUR VISION TO THE SKY! DEALER LOGIN DOWNLOADS
exv10w4






EXHIBIT 10.4




February 5, 2010




Irvine Sensors Corporation

3001 Red Hill Avenue

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Attn: John J. Stuart, Jr.

Fax No.: (714) 444-8773



Gentlemen:



Longview Fund, L.P. (“Longview”) hereby (i) consents to the extension for an additional thirty (30)
days of the sixty (60) day period set forth in Section 10(j) of that certain Term Loan and Security
Agreement dated as of December 29, 2006, in Section 2.5 of that certain Secured Promissory Note
dated as of July 19, 2007 and in Section 2.3 of that certain Contingent Secured Promissory Note
(Buyout) dated as of November 28, 2007; and (ii) acknowledges that during such extended period of
time, the entry of the Judgment on the Verdict against Irvine Sensors Corporation (the “Company”)
in Timothy Looney v. Irvine Sensors Corporation et al (Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 30-2008-00101264-CU-BC-CVC) shall not constitute a default, event of default or other
acceleration event under Sections 10(e) and (j) of that certain Term Loan and Security Agreement
dated as of December 29, 2006, Sections 2.5 and 2.8 of that certain Secured Promissory Note dated
as of July 19, 2007, Sections 2.3 and 2.5 of that certain Contingent Secured Promissory Note
(Buyout) dated as of November 28, 2007, Section 7(a)(xii) of that certain Certificate of
Designations of Rights, Preferences, Privileges and Limitations of Series A-1 10% Cumulative
Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company as filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on April
14, 2008 or Section 7(a)(xi) of that certain Certificate of Designations of Rights, Preferences,
Privileges and Limitations of Series A-2 10% Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company
as filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on March 24, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Sincerely,



LONGVIEW FUND, LP

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ S. MICHAEL RUDOLPH
 	 	 
	 	Name:  	S. Michael Rudolph 	 	 
	 	Title:  	CFO — Investment Advisor 	 	 




	cc:	 	Dorsey & Whitney LLP
38 Technology Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Attn: Ellen Bancroft, Esq.
Fax No.: (949) 932-3601
337.103 Contracting officer responsibility.       (d)          (1)  			The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.237-70, Pro-Children Act, in solicitations, contracts, and orders that involve:          (i) Kindergarten, elementary, or secondary education or library services; or          (ii) Health or daycare services that are provided to children under the age of 18 on a routine or regular basis pursuant to the Pro-Children Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 6081-6084).          (2) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.237-71, Crime Control Act - Reporting of Child Abuse, in solicitations, contracts, and orders that require performance on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility and involve the professions/activities performed by persons specified in the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13031) including, but not limited to, teachers, social workers, physicians, nurses, dentists, health care practitioners, optometrists, psychologists, emergency medical technicians, alcohol or drug treatment personnel, child care workers and administrators, emergency medical technicians and ambulance drivers.          (3) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.237-72, Crime Control Act - Requirement for Background Checks, in solicitations, contracts, and orders that involve providing child care services to children under the age of 18, including social services, health and mental health care, child- (day) care, education (whether or not directly involved in teaching), and rehabilitative programs covered under the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13041).          (4) Contracting officers supporting the Indian Health Service shall insert the clause at 352.237-73, Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Act in all solicitations, contracts, and orders when performance of the contract may involve regular contact with or control over Indian children. The required declaration shall also be included in Section J of the solicitation and contract.          (e) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.237-74, Non-Discrimination in Service Delivery, in solicitations, contracts, and orders to deliver services under HHS' programs directly to the public.          (f) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.237-75, Key Personnel, in solicitations and contracts when the contracting officer will require the contractor to designate contractor key personnel.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 337.1 - Service Contracts - General
#### John DeRaffele, Appellant, v 210-220-230 Owners Corp. et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 16, 2007;

decided October 11, 2007

Reported below, 33 AD3d 752.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see 8*NY3d 814 (2007)].
937.7040 Contract clauses.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 952.237-70 entitled “Collective bargaining

agreements - protective services” in all protective services solicitations and contracts involving DOEowned facilities requiring continuity of services for public safety and national defense reasons. See

also, 922.103-5, Contract clauses, which prescribes use of the clause at 48 CFR 52.222-1, Notice to

the Government of Labor Disputes.

Parent topic: Subpart 937.70 - Protective Services Contracting
§ 110.104 Presiding officer. ( a ) The full Commission will ordinarily be the presiding officer at a hearing under this part. However, the Commission may provide in a hearing notice that one or more Commissioners, or any other person as provided by law, will preside.
( b ) A participant may submit a written motion for the disqualification of any person presiding. The motion shall be supported by affidavit setting forth the alleged grounds for disqualification. If the presiding officer does not grant the motion or the person does not disqualify himself, the Commission will decide the matter.
( c ) If any presiding officer designated by the Commission deems himself disqualified, he shall withdraw by notice on the record after notifying the Commission.
( d ) If a presiding officer becomes unavailable, the Commission will designate a replacement.
( e ) Any motion concerning the designation of a replacement presiding officer shall be made within 5 days after the designation.
( f ) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, the jurisdiction of a presiding officer other than the Commission commences as designated in the hearing notice and terminates upon certification of the hearing record to the Commission, or when the presiding officer is disqualified.