alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DETROIT FLOWER POT CO. *v.*KNOCH.

Sales — Breaos op Implied Warranty — Set-Opp and Recoupment.

In action for balance due on purchase price of flowerpots, where defense was breach of implied warranty and recoupment pleaded, finding of trial court that there was no breach, *held,*supported by evidence.

Appeal from Wayne; Lamb (Fred S.), J., presiding.

Submitted January 20, 1932.

(Docket No. 189, Calendar No. 36,281.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

Assumpsit by Detroit Flower Pot Company, a Michigan corporation, against Minnie Knoch, doing business as Gus Knoch Greenhouses for balance of account. Defendant pleaded recoupment for alleged defective goods. Judgment for plaintiff for entire balance. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Pear S Beattie,*for plaintiff.

*Tilden M. Gallagher,*for defendant.

McDonald, J.

This suit was brought to recover a balance of $656.73 claimed to be due on the purchase price of flowerpots which the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant at various times from September 24,1929, to October 23,1930. The defendant admits that the balance sued for is due according to the invoice price, but asserts the flowerpots were defective to such an extent that they were of no value, and that she was damaged thereby in the sum of $136, for which she pleaded recoupment. From a *20judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of its claim, the defendant has appealed. She claims and alleges as cause for appeal that she was wrongfully denied the right to establish her recoupment and that the judgment is against the great weight of the evidence. ■

Her right to any damages was based upon a breach of an implied warranty as to quality. The trial court found there was no breach, and we think his finding is well supported by the evidence. The defendant received 13 shipments between September 24, 1929, and October 23, 1930, all of which she accepted and used. Though she claims to have known that the pots were defective and of no value in her business, she thereafter continued to use them, gave further orders, and accepted the shipments. She also made payments on account from time to time after she discovered the pots were not of the quality she had ordered. After the last of the 13 shipments on October 23, 1930, she continued her business dealings with the plaintiff. In November and December of that year she ordered and accepted four shipments, for which she paid cash. In consideration of these facts and the testimony of disinterested witnesses as to the quality of the goods, the trial court found there was no breach of warranty. We agree with his findings. As there was no breach, it becomes unnecessary to consider the alleged errors relative to tlie exclusion of testimony offered in support of the claim of recoupment.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butkel, JJ., concurred.
# Official Journal C 308/12 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 308 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6512 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 308

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6512 August 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 308/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 308/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(b)


                               LETTER OF AGREEMENT

This agreement is made on April 6, 2001 between TECHNOLOGY VENTURES GROUP, INC.
and it's successors, located at 12400 S.W 134th Court, Suite 11, Miami, Florida
33186 and MCIVAN A. JARRETT.

The purpose of the agreement is to define the functions to be performed and
payment of certain expenses during the life of the agreement.

Both parties agree that the current financial resources of the company cannot
support traditional salaries for services and therefore both parties agree to
the acceptance of $1000 per month expense allowance in lieu of salary until such
time as both parties agree to change the amount and the payment schedule. Normal
benefits provided by the company such as vacation, sick leave and other benefits
defined by the companies' personnel policies will be made available to Mr.
Jarrett.

This agreement is from month to month commencing on April 1st, 2001 and can be
modified at the beginning of any succeeding month.

Mr. McIvan A. Jarrett will assume the title and responsibilities of President
and will perform such duties as assigned by the Board of Directors.

Consistent with the company and the board policy of providing Director and
Officer (D & O) insurance, Mr. Jarrett will be provided full coverage under the
D & O policy.

This agreement can be terminated by either party with 30 days written notice to
the addresses provided under the acknowledgement signatures.

Technology Ventures Group, Inc.             Mr. McIvan A. Jarrett
12400 S.W 134th Court, Ste #11              12400 S.W 134th Court, Ste #11
Miami, Florida 33186                        Miami, Florida 33186

Signed: /s/ MCIVAN A. JARRETT               Signed: /s/ MCIVAN A. JARRETT
        ---------------------                       ---------------------

Date:  April 6, 2001                                 Date:  April 6, 2001
**EXHIBIT 99.20**

 

**CONSENT OF ANDREW MACKENZIE**

** **

March 20, 2012

 

Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

 

**Re: Brigus Gold Corp.**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection withthe following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F forthe year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consentrelates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2011 and (C)the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2011, (ii) the inclusion or incorporationby reference of information derived from the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558and 333-167757), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, orto any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporatedby reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.

 

Sincerely,
EXHIBIT
      23.1





INDEPENDENT
      AUDITORS’ CONSENT





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
      333-90319 and 333-90313) on Form S-8 for CareAdvantage, Inc. of our report
      dated
      February 10, 2006, on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of
      CareAdvantage, Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and for the years ended December
      31,
      2005 and 2004 included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
      ended December 31, 2005.








/s/
      Eisner LLP








New
      York,
      New York


March
      30,
      2006
[No. 907-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

February 7, 1972.]

#### Associated Sand & Gravel Co., Inc., *Respondent,*v. Aaron (Roy) Hammond *et al., Defendants,*United Pacific Insurance Company, *Appellant.*
From: Baldyga, Lyndsey [LBaldyga@tecoenergy.com]

Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 2:23 PM

To: Hofmeister, Art

Cc: Burrows, Byron T.; Tom Davis (tdavis@ectinc.com)

Subject: RE: Site Certification

Art,

Yes, this process has been initiated. The SZMA has been addressed in the FDEP Conditions of 

Certification which are currently in draft form. FDEP Conditions of Certification Section A General 

Conditions, XXIV Costal Zone Consistency states “...that certification of the facility constitutes the States 

concurrence that the licensed activity or use is consistent with the federally approved program under 

the Florida Costal Management Act. “ 

We have proceeded through the certification hearing and are waiting for the ALJ’s Recommended Order 

which we expect to have by August 26th. We anticipate going before the Florida Power Plant Siting 

Board during the October 15th Governors Cabinet meeting for final approval.

Let me know if there are any additional questions,

Lyndsey Baldyga

Environmental Health & Safety

Air Programs: Engineer I

Phone: 813-228-4740

Ext. 34740

Mobile: 813-309-0376

Lbaldyga@tecoenergy.com

From: Hofmeister, Art [mailto:Hofmeister.Art@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:38 PM

To: Baldyga, Lyndsey

Cc: Burrows, Byron T.; Tom Davis (tdavis@ectinc.com)

Subject: Site Certification

Hi, Lyndsey:

One of the past submittals stated that CZMA would be addressed during the site certification process.

Has that been initiated yet?

Thanks.

Art Hofmeister

Environment Engineer

Air Permits Section

EPA Region 4
(404) 562-9115

***** This email is from an external sender. Be cautious about clicking links or opening 

attachments from unknown sources. *****

NOTICE: This email is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have 

received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not copy or disclose it to 

anyone else. Although we take precautions to protect against viruses, we advise you to take your own precautions to protect against viruses 

as we accept no liability for any which remain.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 213 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 213

Providing for savings in the operations of the House of Representatives 
to be achieved by transferring functions to private sector entities and 
                      eliminating staff positions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 1993

Mr. Santorum submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for savings in the operations of the House of Representatives 
to be achieved by transferring functions to private sector entities and 
                      eliminating staff positions.

    Resolved, That, not later than the end of the One Hundred Third 
Congress, the Speaker shall take such action as may be necessary to 
transfer the activities and entities listed in section 2 to the private 
sector in order to achieve the annual cost savings and staff reductions 
specified in such section, which amount to annual cost savings of 
$10,212,737 (estimated) and staff reductions of 566 positions.
    Sec. 2. The activities, entities, annual cost savings, and staff 
reductions referred to in the first section are as follows:
            (1) House Restaurant System, annual cost saving: 
        $1,800,000, staff reduction: 220 positions (estimated).
            (2) House Post Office, annual cost saving: $3,900,000, 
        staff reduction: 160 positions.
            (3) Barbershop, annual cost saving: $160,737, staff 
        reduction: 7 positions.
            (4) Beauty Shop, annual cost saving: $252,000, staff 
        reduction: 11 positions.

                                 <all>
```
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 115

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 920)

to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1993

Mr. MOAKLEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the

bill (H.R. 920) to extend the emergency unemployment

compensation program, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House, any rule of

3 the House to the contrary notwithstanding, a motion to

4 take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 920) to extend

5 the emergency unemployment compensation program, and

6 for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto,

7 and to concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate

8 amendment shall be considered as read. The motion shall

9 be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled
2

HRES 115 ATH

1 by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

2 Committee on Ways and Means or their respective des3 ignees. The previous question shall be considered as or4 dered on the motion to final adoption without intervening

5 motion. The motion shall be divided for a separate vote

6 on concurring in section 7 of the Senate amendment, any

7 rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.

Æ
# Official Journal L 255/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 255 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6416 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 255

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6416 July 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2021/1169 of 13 July 2021 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska | 1 |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | * | Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1170 of 15 July 2021 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction | 3 |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Decision No 1/2021 of the Community/Switzerland Inland Transport Committee of 30 June 2021 amending Annex 1 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Carriage of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road and Decision No 2/2019 of the Committee on transitory measures to maintain smooth rail traffic between Switzerland and the European Union [2021/1171] | 7 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2021/1169 of 13 July 2021 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska

1

RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1170 of 15 July 2021 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction

3

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Decision No 1/2021 of the Community/Switzerland Inland Transport Committee of 30 June 2021 amending Annex 1 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Carriage of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road and Decision No 2/2019 of the Committee on transitory measures to maintain smooth rail traffic between Switzerland and the European Union [2021/1171]

7

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30055

Summary Calendar

ROBERT NELSON HOWELL,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

T.G. WERLICH, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Pollock,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:15-CV-2146

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Nelson Howell, federal prisoner # 09232-026, appeals the 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. In the 

petition, he challenged his conviction and sentence imposed by the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for controlled 

substance offenses, as well as his conviction for a controlled substance offense 

in the District of Minnesota. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30055 Document: 00513736606 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2016
No. 16-30055

2

Section 2241 is the procedural vehicle for challenging the manner in 

which a sentence is being executed, whereas a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the 

vehicle for collaterally attacking a federal conviction and sentence. Padilla v. 

United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Howell’s challenge 

is to the constitutionality of his Illinois and Minnesota convictions, his claims 

fall under the purview of § 2255 rather than § 2241. See Padilla, 416 F.3d at 

426. A § 2255 motion must be filed in the sentencing court. § 2255(a); Solsona 

v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987).

Although Howell could seek relief in a § 2241 petition filed in the 

Western District of Louisiana under § 2255’s “savings clause” if he 

demonstrated that no adequate or effective relief was available under § 2255 

and relief is available under § 2241, see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 

F.3d 893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001), his arguments that his Minnesota conviction 

was obtained in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and that 

his Illinois conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause do not make the 

required showing. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Howell’s 

motion to dismiss the superseding indictment is DENIED.

 Case: 16-30055 Document: 00513736606 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2016
#### Simon Adler, Respondent, *v.*Kerry E. Fox, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

December, 1911.)

Cause of action—'Facts constituting cause — Liability for blasting. Trespass—Acts constituting trespass and liability therefor — Trespass on real property.

Where'a water pipe leading into plaintiff’s house was broken by the.falling in of a large section of rock caused by an explosion while defendant’s workmen were blasting out rock for a trench, defendant is not liable as for a trespass upon real property if the rock fell from mere concussion and not as a direct result of the blast.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of blew York, borough of Manhattan, sixth district, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered after a trial by the court without a jury.

Blandy, Mooney & Shipman (Lawrence A. Sullivan, of counsel), for appellant.

Henry Fluegelman, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff has recovered judgment for damages caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant in blasting out rock for a trench. The plaintiff at the trial *484showed that a water pipe leading into his house was broken by the falling in of a large section of rock above the pipe. It is fairly inferable that the solid rock above the pipe was broken by a blast set off by the defendant’s workmen, but the record is absolutely void of any evidence that the defendant was negligent in the blasting operations. The plaintiff now claims that we should affirm the judgment regardless of the form of pleading because he has proven without objection that his pipe was broken through the fall of a rock caused by the explosion and that the defendant is liable on the theory of trespass.

The fault in this contention lies in the fact that the issue of trespass was not actually litigated and that the evidence of the falling of the rock was merely incidental to statements' of witnesses as to the condition of the broken pipe. The defendant is liable for trespass if the rock was hurled upon the water pipe, but he is not liable if the rock fell merely from concussion and not as a direct result of the blast. This distinction is clearly pointed out in the case of Derrick v. Kelly, 136 App. Div. 433, which explained and limited the earlier case of Wheeler v. Norton, 92 App. Div. 368. In the case before us we cannot tell whether the break in the solid rock was the direct result of or merely consequential damage from the explosion.

Judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Present: Gtegeeioh, Lehman and Pendleton, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.