alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11661, 11666.

#### Union Manufacturing Co. *v.*Heath; and *vice versa.*

Stephens, J.

1. While the master is bound to exercise ordinary care in furnishing machinery reasonably safe for his servant to operate with ordinary care and diligence, yet the servant assumes the ordinary risks of his employment and is bound to exercise his own skill and diligence to protect himself, and where he is injured by reason of a defect in the machinery caused by the failure of the master to comply with the above duty, the servant cannot recover if he knew of the defect and the danger incident thereto, or could by the exercise of due care have discovered the danger and avoided the injury. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3130, 3131.

2. Where a servant, in the discharge of his duty in feeding ootton to a machine which receives the cotton on steel teeth revolving on a cylinder, is, by too great an intake of the cotton, caused by a too large and defective construction of the mouth of the machine, injured by his hand *310becoming caught in the revolving teeth, he cannot recover from the master for an injury caused by the master’s failure to comply with the duty mentioned in the preceding paragraph, even though the master knew of the defective condition of the machine and the danger incident to operating it, when it appears that the servant also knew of such defect and danger, or by due care could have discovered such danger. Where a bar or guard, belonging over the mouth of the machine for the purpose of regulating and retarding the inflow of the cotton, is displaced, and the mouth of the machine thereby rendered too large, thus causing the machine to become dangerous to one feeding cotton into it with the hand, such danger is perfectly obvious to a servant who actually knows of the defect.

Decided February 15, 1921.

Rehearing denied March 3, 1921.

Action for damages; from city court of Greensboro — Judge Brown. May 14, 1920.

*Bryan & Middlebroolcs, Noel P.*Parle, for plaintiff in error.

*Miles W.*Lewis, contra.

3. A servant cannot recover for an injury upon the ground of having complied with a negligent order of the master, if the servant knew of the obvious danger incident to a compliance with the order. *Southern Railway Co.*v. Taylor, 137 *Ga.*704 (73 S. E. 1055), and cases there cited.

4. In a suit by a servant against the master to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the master in failing to furnish machinery reasonably safe for the servant to operate, where the plaintiff declares upon the above-stated facts, no cause of action is alleged, and it is error to overrule a general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment reversed on the main bill of exceptions; cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., amd Hill, J., concur.*
#### United States *v.*American Bell Tel. Co. *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

July *2,*1889.)

Equity—Reference to Examiner.

On a motion for the appointment of an examiner to take testimony in an equity case, the court will not restrict the testimony to the single issue of fraud which is raised by the plea.

In Equity. Motion to appoint examiner.

*G. A. JenTcs, G. S.*Whitman, and 0. *A.*Galvin, for complainant.

*Q. Smith*and *B. F. Thurston,*for defendants.

Colt, J.

The plaintiff moves the court for the appointment of an examiner to take testimony. The defendant Bell also moves for the appointment of an examiner to take testimony upon the issue raised by his plea filed in this case. The defendant company have answered generally to the bill. The defendant Bell has filed a plea and an answer in support of the plea. To the answer of the defendant company and to the plea the plaintiff has filed replications. The cause, therefore, is at issue, and it is proper for the court to appoint an examiner to take testimony. The defendants’ motion seeks, in effect, to restrict the testimony by order of court to the single issue of fraud which is raised by the plea. It is certainly unusual, upon a motion made in the ordinary way for the appointment of an examiner, to ask the court by an interlocutory order to *231limit in advance the scope of the testimony to be taken. It is probable that no appeal would lie from such an order. But, however this may bo, such action on the part of the court seems to be contrary to established equity practice. Objections may be taken to the evidence on the g’-ounds of incompetency or irrelevancy, and these objections properly come before the court at the final hearing of the cause, but 1 find no precedent for limiting or restricting the taking of testimony in advance. The court should not be called upon at this stage of the case to determine what is proper testimony and what is not, nor to determine the scope of the decision of the supreme court upon the demurrer in this ease. Upon a motion in the ordinary way for the appointment of an examiner it is not for the court to settle questions which cannot be properly and intelligently passed upon at this time. The fact that this is an important, and in some respects an exceptional, case, should not prevent the court from following the usual and ordinary course of equity practice. The defendants’ motion is denied and the plaintiff’s motion is granted, and Henry L. Hallett is hereby appointed examiner.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2162 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2162

     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
   Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Neurotropic 
           Migratory Bird Conservation for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
   Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Neurotropic 
           Migratory Bird Conservation for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
              INTERIOR, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NEUROTROPIC 
              MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for U.S. Department of 
Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Neurotropic Migratory Bird 
Conservation for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $3,910,000.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Johan Albrecht, certify
that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of MATERIALISE NV (the company);
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 30, 2017



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Johan Albrecht     
|    |  | Johan Albrecht         
|    |  | Alfinco BVBA           
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ELIZABETH OVERBROOK, 1

Respondent BelowAppellant,

v.

CHARLES OVERBROOK,

Petitioner BelowAppellee. § § No. 349, 2017 § § § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. CN15-01519 § Petition No. 15-27574 § §

Submitted: December 22, 2017 Decided: January 8, 2018

ORDER

This 8 th day of January 2018, it appears to the Court that, on December 11,

2017, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why her

appeal should not be dismissed for her failu re to pay the Family Court appeal fee.

The appellant failed to respon d to the notice to show cause within the required tenday period. Dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
Exh 101 to name 20150604 Namecheap Amendment 9



		

			Exhibit 10.1

		




		
			TENTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			THIS TENTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is dated effective as of May 29, 2015, by and between Namecheap, Inc. (“Namecheap”) and eNom Incorporated (“eNom").  Unless otherwise expressly defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, on April 1, 2011, Namecheap and eNom entered into that certain Amended and Restated Letter of Agreement (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which eNom provides certain services to Namecheap as more particularly set forth therein, and for other purposes; 
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, Namecheap and eNom have entered into various amendments, including on December 20, 2013, that certain Ninth Amendment to Amended and Restated Letter of Agreement; and
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, Namecheap and eNom desire to amend the Agreement.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Namecheap and eNom hereby agree as set forth below.
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1. 
			

			
	
			
			The “Term and Termination” section on page 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:  




		
			 
		

		
			"This Agreement is in effect commencing as of the Effective Date and continuing through July 31, 2015.  The Agreement will automatically renew for a one (1) year term unless either party upon at least thirty (30) days written notice (including notice via email) provides the other party with notice of its intent not to renew this Agreement.  In the event that either Namecheap or eNom materially breaches this Agreement, the non-breaching party may immediately terminate this Agreement upon prior written notice without an opportunity for cure.”
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 2. 
			

			
	
			
			Except as modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified by Namecheap and eNom.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 3. 
			

			
	
			
			Namecheap and eNom each represents and warrants to the other that it has the right, power and authority to enter into this Amendment.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 4. 
			

			
	
			
			Namecheap and eNom hereby agree that facsimile signatures hereto are valid and binding.




		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused the foregoing Amendment to be signed by a duly authorized agent of each party, the day and year first above written.
		

		
			 
		

		
			NAMECHEAP, INC.ENOM INCORPORATED 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By:  /s/ Richard KirkendallBy:  /s/ Taryn Naidu 
		

		
			Name:  Richard KirkendallName:  Taryn Naidu
		

		
			Title:  CEOTitle:  CEO
		

		
			Date:  May 29, 2015Date: May 29, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information Extracted From The
Condensed Financial Statements of September 30, 1998 And For The Nine Months
Then Ended And Is Qualified In Its Entirety By Reference To Such Financial
Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              44
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     5
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      49
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1584
<BONDS>                                            525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2061)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        49
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (1)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (1)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (1)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

We consent to incorporation byreference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-54487, 333-51508, 33-64313,333-51512, 333-27563, 333-63756, 333-81441, 333-63754, 333-110098 and 333-51506on Form S-8 of Nash Finch Company of our report dated February 23, 2004.  Such report relates to the consolidatedfinancial statements and related financial statement schedule of Nash FinchCompany and subsidiaries as of January 3, 2004 and for each of the years in thethree-year period ended January 3, 2004, and are included in the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Nash Finch Company for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2004.

 
|                   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                   |
|                   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota |
| March 8, 2004          |

 

----
<PAGE>


                                                            EXHIBIT 23.1



            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-113272) pertaining to the Symbion Stock Incentive Plan,
Symbion Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, Symbion Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, Ambulatory Resource Centres, Inc. Nonqualified Initial Option
Plan, and the Amended and Restated Ambulatory Resource Centres, Inc. 1997 Stock
Option Plan of our report dated February 21, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Symbion, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.



                                                        Ernst & Young LLP
Nashville, Tennessee                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
March 24, 2005
*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. 95-20505

Summary Calendar

_____________________

MORRIS BROUSSARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT; JERRY PETERSON;

BILL CHEATHAM; GARY GRIFFITH;

JUNE GROOM; RICHARD BELANGER;

DONDI POSTON; DELANA WILSON;

CYNTHIA TILLEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-95-444)

_________________________________________________________________

March 13, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Morris Broussard, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice

prisoner, has filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he

alleges that he was placed in administrative segregation on January

23, 1992, following a disciplinary hearing in which he was found

guilty of escape. He challenges his confinement in administrative

segregation from January 5, 1994 through January 3, 1995, alleging

that he has been denied meaningful ninety-day review hearings by
-2-

the state classification committee. He seeks compensatory and

punitive damages, damages for emotional distress, and protection

from retaliation. The district court dismissed his complaint as

frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), and did not certify IFP

status for appeal. We agree with the district court. In the light

of Sandin v. Conner, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995) and our recent case in

Pichardo v. Kinker, No. 95-40413 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 31, 1996), a

certificate of probable cause must be denied, because Broussard's

claim has no arguable basis in law or fact and, consequently,

should be dismissed. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir.

1994). As we noted in Pichardo, "absent extraordinary

circumstances, administrative segregation as such, being an

incident to ordinary life as a prisoner, will never be a ground for

a constitutional claim . . . ." This appeal is therefore

D I S M I S S E D.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Howard Thompson, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 924]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered January 16, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), resisting arrest, and unlawful possession of marihuana, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that exigent circumstances justified the search of the defendant’s bag *(see People v Gokey,*60 NY2d 309, 312 [1983]).

The defendant’s argument that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the conviction for resisting arrest is without merit. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Fisher, J.P, Miller, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALBERT D. MAXON, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 106 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 99.1

Tuesday, April 4, 2000, 2:17 pm Eastern Time

Press Release
SOURCE: Bentley Communications Corp.

Bentley Communications Corp. Chosen By China Province And Commercial Interests
To Provide Products and Services

LOS ANGELES, California, April 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Bentley Communications Corp.
(OTCBB: BTLY) announced today that it has been chosen to furnish goods and
services to the People's Republic of China through the Chengdu Foreign Economic
Relations and Trade Service and the Chengdu Minjang International Trade Company,
Ltd. A Letter of Intent has been signed between the Chengdu Foreign Economic
Relations and Trade Service and Chengdu International Trade Co., Ltd. and Gordon
Lee, President of Bentley Communications Corp. pending the signing of the final
documents scheduled for later this month in the People's Republic of China.

The bilateral agreement will engage Bentley Communications Corp. to provide
services and operations assistance, including product sourcing and marketing.
The City of Chengdu and the Province of Sichuan also will use Bentley
Communications Corp. to furnish consulting services and explore other areas of
mutual interest that may arise in the future. Bentley Communications Corp. has
opened an office in the City of Chengdu in the Province of Sichuan to
effectively carry out its duties under this agreement.

The City of Chengdu, with a population in excess of 10 million, is the
commercial, financial and science center, as well as the hub of communications
and transportation, for southwestern China. The Import/Export volume of Chengdu
is over USD1.5 Billion annually. Today, Chengdu plays a more important role in
the region with the implementation of the "Western Developing Strategy" of the
Chinese Central Government.

"This agreement is significant in that it further establishes Bentley
Communications Corporation as a trade presence in China and serves to show the
international business community that we are in a rapid growth mode. Bentley
Communications Corporation is proud to have been chosen to take on such an
important and mutually profitable assignment with the Chengdu Foreign Economic
Relations and Trade Service, the Chengdu Minjang International Trade Company,
Ltd., and the City of Chengdu and the Province of Sichuan. The future looks
extremely bright from here for all concerned," said Gordon Lee, President of
Bentley Communications Corp. in a phone conversation from Chengdu.

Bentley Communications Corp. will also serve as Purchasing Agent for the Chengdu
Foreign Economic Relations and Trade Service and the Chengdu Minjang
International Trade Co., Ltd. in the United States.

Bentley Communications Corp. world headquarters is located at 100 Oceangate,
Suite 750, Long Beach, California 90802 and its phone number is (562) 435-5355.
The Hong Kong Corporate Office of Bentleycomm Asia Ltd., a wholly owned
subsidiary of BTLY, is located in the prestigious Central Plaza. Further
information will be released later this month.

                                                                              56