alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[881 NE2d 214, 851 NYS2d 118]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brandon Allen, Appellant.

Decided January 10, 2008

*1014APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Office of the Appellate Defender,*New York City *(Ana Vuk-Pavlovic, Richard M. Greenberg*and *Sara Gurwitch*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Gary S. Snitow*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*1015Whether the circumstances of a particular case rise to the level of reasonable suspicion is a mixed question of law and fact, beyond our review if the determination is supported by the record. A determination that the police possessed the common-law right to inquire is also a mixed question of law and fact subject to this Court’s limited review. Here, record evidence supports the lower courts’ determinations regarding both reasonable suspicion and the common-law right to inquire *(see People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210 [1976]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
120 STAT. 2650 PUBLIC LAW 109–373—NOV. 27, 2006

Public Law 109–373

109th Congress

An Act

To revise a provision relating to a repayment obligation of the Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation under the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Fort McDowell Indian Community

Water Rights Settlement Revision Act of 2006’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) FORT MCDOWELL WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT.—The

term ‘‘Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act’’ means

the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement

Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–628; 104 Stat. 4480).

(2) NATION.—The term ‘‘Nation’’ means the Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation, formerly known as the ‘‘Fort McDowell Indian

Community’’.

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

SEC. 3. CANCELLATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION.

(a) CANCELLATION OF OBLIGATION.—The obligation of the

Nation to repay the loan made under section 408(e) of the Fort

McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act (104 Stat. 4489) is cancelled.

(b) EFFECT OF ACT.—

(1) RIGHTS OF NATION UNDER FORT MCDOWELL WATER

RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph

(B), nothing in this Act alters or affects any right of the

Nation under the Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement

Act.

(B) EXCEPTION.—The cancellation of the repayment

obligation under subsection (a) shall be considered—

(i) to fulfill all conditions required to achieve the

full and final implementation of the Fort McDowell

Water Rights Settlement Act; and

(ii) to relieve the Secretary of any responsibility

or obligation to obtain mitigation property or develop

additional farm acreage under section 410 the Fort

McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act (104 Stat.

4490).

Fort McDowell

Indian

Community

Water Rights

Settlement

Revision Act of

2006.

Nov. 27, 2006

[S. 2464]

PUBLIC LAW 109–373—NOV. 27, 2006 120 STAT. 2651

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2464:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–284 (Comm. on Indian Affairs).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Sept. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Æ

(2) ELIGIBILITY FOR SERVICES AND BENEFITS.—Nothing in

this Act alters or affects the eligibility of the Nation or any

member of the Nation for any service or benefit provided by

the Federal Government to federally recognized Indian tribes

or members of such Indian tribes.

Approved November 27, 2006.
###### Editorial Note on Part 55

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 55 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 55.21 Medical examination.

An applicant for a license shall have a medical examination by a physician. A licensee shall have a medical examination by a physician every two years. The physician shall determine that the applicant or licensee meets the requirements of § 55.33(a)(1).
# Subpart 2414.4 - Opening of Bids and Award of Contracts

**Parent topic:**PART 2414 - SEALED BIDDING

## 2414.404 Rejection of bids.

## 2414.404-1 Cancellation of invitations after opening.

(c) Invitations may be cancelled and all bids rejected before award but after opening when the Head of the Contracting Activity, as described in subpart 2402.1, determines in writing that cancellation is appropriate and consistent with FAR 14.404-1.  

## 2414.407 Mistakes in bids.

## 2414.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

(e) The determination to allow a bidder to: Correct a mistake in bid discovered before award (other than obvious clerical errors); withdraw a bid; or, neither correct nor withdraw a bid shall be submitted to the Head of the Contracting Activity for approval. 

## 2414.407-4 Mistakes after award.

(d) For determinations under FAR 14.407-4(b), the Head of the Contracting Activity will obtain the concurrence of legal counsel before notification to the Contractor. The Contracting Officer shall be notified promptly of action to be taken.  

## 2414.408 Award.

## 2414.408-70 Award when only one bid is received.

When only one bid is received in response to an invitation for bids, such bid may be considered and accepted if the Contracting Officer makes a written determination that: (a) The specifications were clear and not unduly restrictive; (b) adequate competition was solicited and it could have been reasonably assumed that more than one bid would have been submitted; (c) the price is reasonable; and (d) the bid is otherwise in accordance with the invitation for bids. Such a determination shall be placed in the file.
2424.203 Policy.

See 24 CFR part 15 for the HUD regulations which implement the Freedom of Information Act.

Parent topic: Subpart 2424.2 - Freedom of Information Act
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.13 Emergencies.

Whenever emergency circumstances make it necessary and whenever, in other situations, the health and safety of the public may be adversely affected if mitigative or remedial actions are delayed, the Commission may take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations. In taking an action covered by this section, the Commission will consult with the Council as soon as feasible concerning appropriate alternative NEPA arrangements.
###### Editorial Note on Part 32

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 32.58 Same: Labeling of devices.

Each person licensed under § 32.57 shall affix to each source, or storage container for the source, a label which shall contain sufficient information relative to safe use and storage of the source and shall include the following statement or a substantially similar statement which contains the information called for in the following statement:[1]

The receipt, possession, use, and transfer of this source, Model, Serial No., are subject to a general license and the regulations of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission or of a State with which the Commission has entered into an agreement for the exercise of regulatory authority. Do not remove this label.

CAUTION-RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL-THIS SOURCE CONTAINS AMERICIUM-241 (or RADIUM-226). DO NOT TOUCH RADIOACTIVE PORTION OF THIS SOURCE

(Name of manufacturer or initial transferor)

[72 FR 55929, Oct. 1, 2007]

###### Footnotes -
  32.58

[1] Sources licensed under § 32.57 before January 19, 1975, may bear labels authorized by the regulations in effect on January 1, 1975.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 541 

Honoring Drs. Roy J. Glauber, John L. Hall, and Theodor W. Ha ̈nsch 

for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2005, and Drs. Yves 

Chauvin, Robert H. Grubbs, and Richard R. Schrock for being awarded 

the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2005, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2005 

Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. GORDON, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. WU, and Mr. HOLT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Science 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring Drs. Roy J. Glauber, John L. Hall, and Theodor 

W. Ha ̈nsch for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 

for 2005, and Drs. Yves Chauvin, Robert H. Grubbs, 

and Richard R. Schrock for being awarded the Nobel 

Prize in Chemistry for 2005, and for other purposes. 

Whereas on October 10, 2005, the Royal Swedish Academy 

of Sciences awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2005 

to Drs. Roy J. Glauber, John L. Hall, and Theodor W. 

Ha ̈nsch for their pioneering discoveries in the field of optics; 

Whereas their contributions to the quantum theory of optical 

coherence and development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique, 
2 

•HRES 541 IH 

has led to improvements in the accuracy of precision instruments such as GPS locators, atomic clocks, and navigation systems; 

Whereas John L. Hall recently retired from a long career 

with the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), Quantum Physics Division, and was one of the 

founding fellows of the JILA, a joint Federal lab/university cooperative effort supporting research and post-graduate training; 

Whereas the NIST, founded in 1901, and its laboratories and 

collaborations with academia have contributed to the 

achievements of present and past Nobel Prize winners by 

supporting research that strengthens the global economic 

competitiveness of the United States through the development of technologies, measurement methods, and standards; 

Whereas John L. Hall is one of three NIST researchers to 

have received a Nobel Prize; 

Whereas on October 10, 2005, the Royal Swedish Academy 

of Sciences awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 

2005 to Drs. Yves Chauvin, Robert H. Grubbs, and Richard R. Schrock for their pioneering discoveries in the 

field of organic chemistry; 

Whereas their research on metathesis reactions and the development of the metathesis method in organic synthesis 

has resulted in a major advance for ‘‘green chemistry’’ 

and the development of pharmaceuticals that can be 

made through methods that are more efficient and generate fewer hazardous wastes: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
3 

•HRES 541 IH 

1 (1) recognizes and honors Drs. Roy J. Glauber, 

2 John L. Hall, and Theodor W. Ha ̈nsch; 

3 (2) recognizes and honors Drs. Yves Chauvin, 

4 Robert H. Grubbs, and Richard R. Schrock; and 

5 (3) acknowledges the importance of National 

6 Institute of Standards and Technology research and 

7 its contributions to United States industry, aca8 demia, and government. 

Æ
#### Evelyn G. Friedberg, Respondent, v. Saul Friedberg, Appellant.

In an action in which defendant husband has appealed to the Court of Appeals from an order of this court (31 A D 2d 765) (1) modifying a judgment of separation by reducing the weekly alimony granted therein from $125 to $100 and (2) affirming the judgment as so modified, he appeals, as limited by his brief, (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 11, 1969, which directed him to pay plaintiff $2,500 for her counsel’s fee to *541oppose defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, plus plaintiff’s printing expenses, and (b) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered November 14, 1969, as, on reargument and reconsideration, adhered to the original determination directing payment of the counsel fee, etc. Appeal from order of September 11, 1969 dismissed as academic, without costs. That order was superseded by the order of November 14, 1969 granting defendant’s motion for reargument and reconsideration. Order of November 14, 1969 modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto, after the words *“*the original decision is adhered to ”, the following: *“*except that the award of the counsel fee is reduced from $2,500 to $1,250, and the instalments thereof are reduced from $1,000 to $500 and from $1,500 to $750.” As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. The first installment, $500, shall be paid within 10 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. In our opinion, the award of a counsel fee was excessive and should be reduced as indicated herein *(Zeitlan*v. *Zeitlan,*33 A D 2d 577). Rabin, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Case 2:06-cv-00765-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
§ 501.66 OFE evaluation of the record, decision and order. ( a ) The administrative record in a proceeding under this part will consist of the proposed prohibition order and/or petition and related documents, all relevant evidence presented at the public hearing, all written comments, and any other information in the possession of OFE and made a part of the public record of the proceeding. OFE will base its determination to issue a rule or order on consideration of the whole record, or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.
( b ) OFE may investigate and corroborate any statement in any petition, document, or public comments submitted to it. OFE also may use any relevant facts it possesses in its evaluation and may request submissions from third persons relevant to the petition or other documents. OFE also may request additional information, data, or analyses following a public hearing, if any, if this information is necessary to resolve disputed issues in the record. Any relevant information received by OFE following the hearing that is not declared to be confidential under § 501.7(a)(11) shall be made part of the public record with opportunity provided for rebuttal.
( c ) OFE will notify all participants if, after the close of any public hearing or comment period, it receives or obtains any relevant information or evidence. Participants may respond to such information or evidence in writing within fourteen (14) days of such notification. If OFE finds that the additional information or evidence relates to material issues of disputed fact and may significantly influence the outcome of the proceeding, OFE shall reopen the hearing on the issue or issues to which the additional information or evidence relates.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT I, John V. Curci, the Chief Financial Officer of B.H.I.T. Inc., certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of B.H.I.T. 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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and we have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made
known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: November 5, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ John V. CurciJohn V. CurciVice-President, Treasurer & Chief Financial OfficerPrincipal Accounting Officer
417 Drone Imaging LLC

2912 W Garton Road

Ozark, MO 65721

417-300-4354

To whom it may Concern,

417 Drone Imaging, a registered Missouri LLC, Being wholly owned by US Citizens would 

request special exemption from certain FAA Regulations with the supporting documents.

Attachment 1 Official Request for Exemption

Attachment 2 Closed Set and Motion Picture Filming Manual

Attachment 3 Pending Request for registration of Inspire 1 Drone

Attachment 4 Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide

Attachment 5 Inspire 1 Operating Guide

Attachment 6 Inspire Maintenance Manual

Attachment 7 Smart Battery Safety Guide

Attachment 8 Phantom 2 Vision User Manual

Attachment 9 DJI S900 Release Notes 

Attachments 4 and 5 are too large to be attached to the docket system. They outline strict 

standards for operating the Aircraft and can be provided if requested.
#### Robert Nelson et al., Doing Business as Bridon Realty Co., Respondents, v. Paul F. Mundt et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown, et al., Appellants.

In an action to declare a certain local law unconstitutional, defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered December 13, 1968, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs are the owners of a large shopping center in New City, Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County. In front of the businesses' in plaintiffs’ shopping center is a substantial parking area. Adjoining plaintiffs’'northern boundary is a considerably smaller shopping center. Its parking area, located next to that of the plaintiffs, is comparatively modest in size. Traffic is fed into both shopping centers by a State highway, Route 304, which runs along their eastern boundaries. In 1966, the Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown enacted, as Local Law No. 2, a *“*local law providing for the construction, repair and maintenance of shopping center parking areas.” In 1967, the Town Board enacted the local law here in question, as Local Law No. 6, which, in part, amended the 1966 law by adding the following provision: “ Every owner shall maintain that portion of his property bordering adjacent shopping centers free from any artificial physical separations, such as walls, rails, fences or berms, except as approved by an official town body, such as the planning board, zoning board of appeals, building inspector or police department, so as to permit the easy and unobstructed flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between adjacent shopping centers.” Without deciding whether the 1967 law is unconstitutional because it deprives plaintiffs of their property without due process of law, we conclude that the 1967 law is unconstitutional for want of defendants’ legislative authority to enact it (see N. Y. Const., art. IX, § 2; Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10, subd. 1, par. [ii], cl. a, subels. [6], [11]). The Town Board has not been authorized to legislate, concerning traffic between adjoining private parcels of land; hence, it cannot assert its police power in justification of the 1967 law (see *People*v. *Lewis,*295 N. Y. 42, 49; *Good Humor Corp.*v. *City of New York,*290 N. Y. 312). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
SERVED : SEPTEMBE R28 , 201 0 ' ^FPARTMENT O F 

### :RANSPORIATIO N •"-KE TOPERATION S U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N ' M i B 2 ^ A ^ : 3 9

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C INTH EMATTE RO F COLGA NAIR , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09EA001 7 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S NO.-FAA-2009-058 1



### NOTIC E O F PREHEARIN G CONFERENC E A Prehearin g Telephon e Conferenc e i s hereb y schedule do n Octobe r 14 , 2010 , at

2 p.m. , Easten; ! Time . Al l partie s shoul db e prepare dt o discus s al l issue s an dfact s a t issue . Al l document s that hav e bee n exchange dan dthat hav e not alread y bee n provide dt o th e Judg e shoul db e furnishe d t o hi mb y Octobe r

7 , 2010 . Pursuan t t o Sectio n 55 6 o f

th e Administrativ e Procedur e Act , 5 U.S.C . § 556(c)(8) , eac h party shal l b e represente db y someon e wh o ha s authority t o negotiat e concernin g resolutio n o f al l issue s in controversy . S O ORDERED .
^~~R6rmi e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e Law/ud ; Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFAA Docke t No . CP09EA001 7 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suite 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Mar k A . Dombroff

, Respondent' s Counse l DOMBROFFGILMOR EJAQUE S & FRENCH , P.C . 167 6 International Driv e - Penthous e McLean , V A 2210 2 TEL : 703-336-870 0 FAX : 703-336-875 0 Christian L . Lewerenz , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , EAL- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-327 3 FAX : 718-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronnie A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 1200 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-214 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e i nperso n o r

b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federal Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . - 2 -