alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
34267.

#### TIPTON v. CITY OF DUDLEY et al.

Hall, Justice.

The issue on appeal is the legality of a municipal resolution prohibiting the sale of malt beverages or beer within the incorporated limits of the City of Dudley, and stating that no license shall be issued by the city for the sale of malt beverages or beer. The appellant sought mandamus against the city and mayor and council to compel them to issue him a license for the retail sale of beer. The trial court denied the writ, and we affirm.

The public policy of the State of Georgia differs with respect to the retail sale of alcoholic beverages and liquor, naturally fermented wine, and malt beverages or beer. Prior to the sale of alcoholic beverages and liquor, a prescribed special election must first be held in the city or county and the question submitted to the voters. If the vote is affirmative, the sale shall be permitted subject to *808regulation by the governing authorities. *Thomas v. Ragsdale,*188 Ga. 238 (3 SE2d 567) (1939); Code Ann. § 58-1008. The sale of naturally fermented wines at retail in any city or county is legal unless the sale has been prohibited by an election prescribed by law; the sale is subject to regulation by the governing authorities. *Pruitt v. Causey,*226 Ga. 569 (176 SE2d 57) (1970); Code Ann. Ch. 58-8. The right to sell malt beverages or beer is subject to the determination of the governing authorities of a city or county; they have the right to prohibit its sale and deny all applicants a license. *Gaissert v. State,*186 Ga. 599 (198 SE 675) (1938); *McKinnon v. Manning,*221 Ga. 532 (145 SE2d 552) (1965); Code Ann. § 58-718. If the governing authority of the city or county decides to permit the sale of malt beverages or beer, it shall adopt an ordinance setting forth the prescribed standards for the issuance of a license. When an applicant for a license meets these standards, a refusal by the governing authority to issue the license constitutes a denial of equal protection, entitling the applicant to a writ of mandamus. *City of Atlanta v. Hill,*238 Ga. 413 (233 SE2d 193) (1977).

Argued November 15, 1978

Decided January 4, 1979.

*William L. Tribble,*for appellant.

*Paul J. Jones, Jr.,*for appellees.

Since the appellee has prohibited the sale of malt beverages or beer within its incorporated area and denied licenses to all applicants, the trial court did not err in denying the writ of mandamus.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:(1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51137) pertaining to the 1998 Employee ShareIncentive Plan and the 1998 Non-Employee Trustees’ Share Option Plan of CentraCore Properties Trust, (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60052) pertaining to the 2000 Stock OptionPlan of CentraCore Properties Trust, (3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-120499) pertaining to the Amended and Restated2002 Stock Plan of CentraCore Properties Trust,of our reports dated March 6, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of CentraCore Properties Trust (f/k/a Correctional Properties Trust), CentraCoreProperties Trust management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CentraCoreProperties Trust, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2005.                                                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP   Certified Public Accountants      Miami, Florida
No. 46414.

#### Protest 55775-K of Gribbon Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is similar to that the subject of *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441). It was therefore held that countervailing duty is not applicable to said articles.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2154

SANJEEV MALHOTRA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WATERGATE AT LANDMARK (WAL) CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, WAL Board of Directors and/or its

assignees,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-05-76-LMB)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sanjeev Malhotra, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Curtis Gartner,

WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sanjeev Malhotra appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his claim of wrongful termination and granting summary

judgment to Defendant on his claim that his Flexible Spending

Account funds were being withheld. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See (R. Vol. 2 at 2-7); Malhotra v.

Watergate at Land Condo Assoc., No. CA-05-76-LMB (E.D. Va. filed

Sept. 13, 2005 and entered Sept. 14, 2005). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6904

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAMONA MARIA DIFAZIO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CR-94-2-4, CA-96-152-4)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ramona Maria DiFazio, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,

Sherrie Scott Hardwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Norfolk, Virginia; Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. DiFazio, Nos. CR-94-2-4; CA-96-152-4 (E.D. Va. May

30, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-10.21



 





Exhibit 10.21











	 	 	 
	Mr. S. Richer

Chief Executive Officer

Cascal B.V.

Biwater House

Station Approach

Dorking RH4 3QQ

	 	PMW/ccs/07-001
	 

	 	10 August 2007






Dear Mr. Richer,



I can confirm on behalf of Biwater Plc and its subsidiaries (“Biwater”) that it will bear, or
require one or more of its subsidiaries to bear, a proportion of the costs of the Cascal IPO. The
IPO costs will be shared in the proportions of the primary and secondary shares being offered to
the market, with Biwater bearing the proportion related to the secondary shares. The secondary
offering is currently estimated to be around 50% of the total offering. Biwater will settle its
liability for these costs out of the proceeds derived from the secondary offering.




Yours sincerely


/s/ Philip Wainwright


Philip Wainwright

Group Finance Director

Biwater Plc




www.biwater.com




Biwater Plc

Biwater House, Station Approach, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1TZ England

Tel +44 (0) 1306 740740 fax +44 (0) 1306 885233




Registered in England No. 929686 Registered Office Biwater House, Station Approach, Dorking, Surrey
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132417 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DARREN FINDLING, Personal Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Frank E. Early, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132417 

 COA: 267519 

Oakland CC: 2005-064647-NH 

JEFFREY PARKER, M.D., and

JEFFREY PARKER, M.D., P.C.,

d/b/a/ ADVANCED SPORTS 

MEDICINE, P.C.,

 Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of November 29, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the 

September 28, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the 

decision in Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445-6). On order of the 

Court, the case having been decided on April 9, 2008, 480 Mich 1159 (2008), the 

application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
SCAD-18-0000323

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs.

PHILIP M. KLEINSMITH,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 17-O-267)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for issuance of a

reciprocal discipline notice upon Respondent Philip Martin

Kleinsmith, filed on April 10, 2018 by the Office of Disciplinary

Counsel (ODC) pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme

Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and the memorandum and

exhibits appended thereto, and the record in this matter, we find

that, on December 21, 2016, the Supreme Court of the State of

Colorado entered an order, disbarring Respondent Kleinsmith,

effective December 23, 2016, having concluded Kleinsmith had

converted more than $55,000.00 in funds owed to a title company to

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-18-0000323

10-JUL-2018

10:50 AM
pay expenses for his law firm, and having found, in aggravation,

that Kleinsmith had substantial experience in the practice of law,

had previously been disciplined, exhibited a dishonest and selfish

motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, refused to acknowledge

the wrongful nature of his conduct, and was indifferent to making

restitution, conduct which, if committed in this jurisdiction,

would constitute violations of Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c) of the

Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct (2014). We further find that

the record in this matter establishes that service of a Notice and

Order was properly made upon Respondent Kleinsmith on April 25,

2018 at the address Respondent Kleinsmith has registered with the

Hawai#i State Bar Association for service of process and, therefore,

that Respondent Kleinsmith had until May 25, 2018 to show cause as

to why reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction is unwarranted. 

Respondent Kleinsmith has failed to respond to the Notice and

Order, and a review of the record and precedent demonstrates,

pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.15(c) and (d), that reciprocal discipline

is authorized and justified. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Philip Martin

Kleinsmith is disbarred from the practice of law in this

jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.3(a)(1) and 2.15(c). 

Furthermore, RSCH Rule 2.16(c) notwithstanding, insofar as the

record indicates Respondent Kleinsmith is not present in the

jurisdiction and is on involuntary inactive status, the disbarment

2
shall be effective immediately upon entry of this order.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Kleinsmith is

reminded he may not resume the practice of law in this jurisdiction

until reinstated by order of this court.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 10, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

3
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mniteb ~tateg <!Court of ~peaIg

for tbe jfeberaI <!Circuit

AMBASE CORPORATION

AND CARTERET BANCORP, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,

AND

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant.

2012-5047, -5048, -5049

Appeals from the United States Court of Federal

Claims in case no. 93-CV-531, Senior Judge Loren A.

Smith.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The parties jointly move for a limited remand to the

United States Court of Federal Claims for the purpose of

seeking approval of their settlement agreement pursuant
AMBASE CORP v. US 2

to Court of Federal Claims Rule 23.1(c). The parties also

move to hold the appeals in abeyance pending the Court

of Federal Claims' approval or disapproval of the settlement agreement.

, This court grants the motion to the extent that we

remand for the limited purpose of the Court of Federal

Claims's consideration of the parties' motions. We retain

jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate

review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty

days of entry of the court's determination on remand. The

appeals are held in abeyance pending the resolution of the

motion by the Court of Federal Claims. The parties

should promptly inform this court of the Court of Federal

Claims' ruling on the motion and should propose how they

believe the appeals should proceed in light of the court's

ruling.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted to the extent explained

above. This court retains jurisdiction over the appeals at

this time.

(2) All other pending motions are moot.

FOR THE COURT

OCT 03 2012

Date

cc: Charles J. Cooper, Esq.

John M. Dorsey, III, Esq.

Jeanne E. Davidson, Esq.

s25

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

..• -.ft'Fi~PEALS FOR ~.At CIRCUIT

OCT 03201£

JANHORBALY

ClERK
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-4 (No. 333-85527) and Form S-8 (No. 333-48343, No.
333-48345, No. 333-48349 and No. 333-48353) of Vlasic Foods International Inc.
of our report dated September 13, 2000, appearing on page 56 of the Annual
Report to Shareowners which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
October 18, 2000
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 311 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES 

4 ON CAPITOL GROUNDS. 

5 The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Associa6 tion (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Association’’) 

7 shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box 
2 

•HCON 311 EH 

1 derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on June 21, 2008, 

2 or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Rep3 resentatives and the Committee on Rules and Administra4 tion of the Senate may jointly designate. 

5 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS. 

6 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall 

7 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged 

8 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi9 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and 

10 the Capitol Police Board; except that the Association shall 

11 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

12 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

13 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT. 

14 For the purposes of this resolution, the Association 

15 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject 

16 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage, 

17 sound amplification devices, and other related structures 

18 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car19 ried out under this resolution. 

20 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. 

21 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

22 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar23 rangements that may be required to carry out the event 

24 under this resolution. 
3 

•HCON 311 EH 

1 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

2 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce3 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

4 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise5 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

6 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

7 Grounds, with respect to the event to be carried out under 

8 this resolution. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 4, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 311 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 

Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.
No. 74-5879.

#### Olden *v.*United States District Court for the Central District of California.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 65777.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protest 270939-K/14616 (New Orleans).

*532Opinion, by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorated earthenware salt boxes, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13
(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ John L. Skibski
--------------------------------------------
John L. Skibski
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# MWSS-372 advances unit innovation with 3D printing

By Sgt. Brytani Wheeler3rd Marine Aircraft Wing

                Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz.,   –              **WHERE IT ALL STARTED****CURRENT FUNCTIONS ****THE WAY FORWARD***Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

3rd Marine Aircraft Wing3D printingAdditive Manufacturingparts
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Physicians Capital, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William B. Cheeseman Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.




/s/ William B. Cheeseman
----------------------------------------
William B. Cheeseman
President and Chief Executive Officer
Dated: May 15, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.