Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): such that the name of — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1885, 1895, 161 L.Ed.2d 796 (2005) (“States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses.”). Based on these decisions, he argues that Va.Code 46.2-716 violates the Constitutional prohibition of state laws that discriminate against out of state commerce. The merits of defendant’s negative commerce clause argument are doubtful, given that the Virginia statute, as applied to all vehicles traveling in Virginia, is both reasonable and neither discriminates against interstate commerce, nor results in an unreasonable burden on such commerce. See American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Michigan Public Service Com’n, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2419, 2423, 162 L.Ed.2d 407 (2005) (<HOLDING>). In any event, it is unnecessary to reach the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding 18 usc  922o a valid exercise of congressional power under commerce clause (B) holding that michigans imposition of flat 100 annual fee on trucks engaging in intrastate commercial hauling was valid exercise of states police power which did not violate dormant commerce clause (C) holding that state regulations of intrastate wildlife are within dormant commerce clause (D) holding that dormant commerce clause complaint by instate resident against municipality failed on merits because challenged rule regulated evenhandedly and did not burden interstate commerce (E) recognizing that congress had the power to regulate boxcars that traveled exclusively intrastate because of their inherent mobility and connection to interstate commerce it is no objection to such an exertion of commerce clause power that the dangers intended to be avoided arise in whole or in part out of matters connected with intrastate commerce
Output (English): holding that state regulations of intrastate wildlife are within dormant commerce clause