alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City of Cullman *v.*Arndt.

*Prosecution for Violation of Gity Ordinance.*

1. *Constitutional law; construction of city ordinance.*— An. ordinance of a municipality levying a tax on “every agency of a brewery of another State doing business in this city,” is palpable discrimination in favor of domestic breweries and against breweries of other States, and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cullman.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speaks.

Frank Arndt, the appellee, was prosecuted in the mayor’s court of the city of Cullman, for an alleged violation of an ordinance of said city. From a judgment of conviction the defendant appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals. The facts showing the only question reviewed on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Will G. Brown, for appellant.

*582J. B. Brown, for appellee,

cited, *Ex parte*Reynolds; 87 Ala. 138; *Ball only ne v.*Wilkersham, 75 Ala. 533; *Yer-by v.*Cochrane, 101 Ala. 453; Cases cited under § 2, Art. IV of Const.; Code, § 36. •

DOWDELL, J.

The prosecution in this case was begun in the mayor’s court and was for the violation of an ordinance of the municipality levying a license tax of $50 on “every agency of a brewery of another State doing business in the city.” On conviction, the defendant appealed to the circuit court, where he was tried and •convicted. From the judgment of the circuit court the city of Cullman prosecutes this appeal.

The vital question in the case is, can the ordinance requiring the license tax be upheld. That ordinance provides as follows: “To fix the schedule of license and privilege tax upon business and occupations. Sec. 1. Be it ordained by the mayor and city council of Cull-man, Alabama, that the amounts to be paid for license and privilege tax for the following business, occupations, and matters, shall be as follows: * * * * No. 38. Every agency of a brewery of another State doing business in the city, fifty dollars.”

It requires no argument to demonstrate that the license tax here imposed is a palpable discrimination in favor of domestic breweries and against breweries of another State. It is plainly offensive to that provision of the constitution of the United States by which the citizens of each State are declared entitled to “all the immunities and privileges of the citizens of several States.” Under this ordinance while a brewery of Chattanooga, Tenn., to do business in the city of Cullman through an agency located in that city, must pay a license tax of fifty dollars, a brewery of Montgomery or Mobile, or elsewhere within the State, may establish its agency in said city and do business there free from such license tax. So it can be readily seen that while the ordinance requires a license tax of agencies of foreign breweries, home and domestic breweries are exempt, producing a discrimination that avoids and destroys the municipal act.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 17, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 17, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0525. GAVIN SCOTT WILSON v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

08B1390 09B2007 09B2582
#### HUDSON COUNTY GAS CO., to Use of PUBLIC SERVICE GAS CO., v. McCOACH.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

January 21, 1916.)

No. 1973.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Rennsylvania; Oliver B. Dickinson, Judge.

Action by the Hudson County Gas Company, to use of the Bublic Service Gas Company, against William McCoach. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Prank Bergen, of 'Newark, N. J., and Morgan, Rewis & Bockius, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error.

*913Francis Fisher Kane, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Edward S. Kremp, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Reading, Pa., for defendant in error.

Before BUFFINGTON, McPHHRSON, and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the same questions that were involved in the Public Service Corporation Cases decided by this court at the present term. 229 Fed. 902, --C. C. A.---. The reasoning upon which the decisions in those cases was based applies with equal force to the facts of this case, and compels a like decision.

The judgment below is affirmed.

McPIIERSON, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case.
EXHIBIT 32.02CERTIFICATION BY SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF ACCOUNTING AN FINANCE      I, Gregory T. Donovan, certify that (i) the Form 10Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007of The Campbell Fund Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10Q for the quarterended September 30, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of The Campbell Fund Trust.         THE CAMPBELL FUND TRUST    By: Campbell & Company, Inc., managing operator     By: /s/ Gregory T. Donovan             Gregory T. Donovan      Senior Vice President of Accounting and Finance      November 14, 2007  
E 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001043476
<NAME>                        OAO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               11,733
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        27,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1,709)
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     11,051
<PP&E>                                                4,791<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       60,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                18,718
<BONDS>                                                  34<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                183
<OTHER-SE>                                           41,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         60,056
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     38,545
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        33,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      4,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      596<F3>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       1,233
<INCOME-TAX>                                            524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     709
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                            709
<EPS-BASIC>                                             .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .04


<FN>
(F1)     Shown  in this  Financial  Data  Schedule  net of  related  accumulated
         depreciation for consistency with Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(F2)     Represents the long-term portion of capital lease obligations.
(F3)     Represents interest and other income of the Company.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### Guy Maximillion TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Gary HERTZEL, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-10723

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 8, 2011.

Guy Maximillion Taylor, Bessemer, AL, pro se.

Audrey Kathleen Jones Jordan, Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General’s Office, State of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Guy Taylor, an Alabama prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted Taylor a certifícate of appealability (COA) on the following issue only:

> Whether the district court erred in denying Taylor’s claim that appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to argue that Taylor had been convicted based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

On appeal, Taylor argues two witnesses who testified against him at trial were his accomplices. Taylor claims the state failed to corroborate their testimony, as required by Alabama law, and his appellate and trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to raise this argument at trial or on appeal. The state responds the district court never addressed the claim raised in the COA and, pursuant to *Clisby v. Jones,*960 F.2d 925, 935-36 (11th Cir.1992), we should vacate the district court’s judgment against Taylor and remand the case back to the district court to permit it to determine whether the claim has merit.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; *Murray v. United States,*145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir.1998). Procedural issues that must be resolved before we can address the underlying claim specified in the COA are presumed to be encompassed in the COA. *McCoy v. United States,*266 F.3d 1245, 1248 n. 2 (11th Cir.2001). Out of “deep concern over the piecemeal litigation *851of federal habeas petitions,” we held in *Clisby*that the district courts must “resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [§ 2254], regardless whether habeas relief is granted or denied.” *Clisby,*960 F.2d at 935-36. When a district court fails to address all of the claims in a habeas petition, we “will vacate the district court’s judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims.” *Id.*at 938.

The district court failed to address the claim raised in Taylor’s COA. Therefore, we vacate the denial of Taylor’s habeas petition and remand the case back to the district court for consideration of the claim.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


                            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 Allergy Research Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr.
Stephen A. Levine, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

                  (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.

Dated:  August 12, 2005


                                       By: /s/ Stephen A. Levine
                                       ---------------------------
                                       Dr. Stephen A. Levine
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Allergy Research Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Allergy Research Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 77 (Thursday, April 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9852]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new, and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Submit comments on or before June 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding whether this information 
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, whether the burden estimate is accurate, and if there are 
ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the 
collection, to Kenneth D. Simonson, Senior Economic Advisor, Office of 
Advocacy, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 
7800, Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth D. Simonson, Senior Economic 
Advisor, 202-205-6973 or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-
7030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: ``Value of Worker Training Programs to Small Business''.
    Form No: N/A.
    Description of Respondents: Small and Large Businesses.
    Annual Responses: 2,400.
    Annual Burden: 1,244.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-9852 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
* 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. 96-41182

Conference Calendar

 

NESBITT EDWIN MADISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

D. ATWOOD, Captain, Beto I,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CV-782

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nesbitt Edwin Madison, Texas prisoner #611189, filed a civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Captain D. Atwood

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional

Division (TDCJ-ID). Madison argues that the district court

abused its discretion by dismissing as frivolous his claim that

Atwood violated his due process rights by not classifying him as

a Level 1 prisoner. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Eason v.
No. 96-41182

-2-

Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).

A prisoner's liberty interest is “generally limited to

freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in

such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the

Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical

and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct.

2293, 2300 (1995) (citation omitted). As Madison did not allege

that a liberty or property interest protected by the due process

clause, the district court did not err in dismissing his claim. 

See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, 116 S. Ct. 1690 (1996); see also Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d

256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988)(an inmate has neither a protected

property nor liberty interest in his custody classification). 

Madison’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Madison previously has been warned by this court that he may

be sanctioned for filing further frivolous pleadings. Madison v.

Young, No. 96-10869, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 1996). 

Accordingly, Madison is barred from filing any pro se, in forma

pauperis, civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, in forma

pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to

this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission

of a judge of the forum court or of this court; the clerk of this

court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this
No. 96-41182

-3-

Circuit are directed to return to Madison, unfiled, any attempted

submission inconsistent with this bar. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 04-07

IN RE: EFFECT OF HURRICANE KATRINA ON POSTAL SERVICE

O R D E R

 Miscellaneous Order No. 8-05 is hereby vacated.

DATED: January 31, 2007 FOR THE COURT:

NORMAN Y. HERRING

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 10.16(a)






Exhibit 10.16(a)




Amendment to

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. Executive Management Incentive Plan




Effective as of March 30, 2010




The Jos. A Bank Clothiers, Inc. Executive Management Incentive Plan is hereby amended to add
the following as Section 18 thereof:



18. ADJUSTMENT OF AWARDS DUE TO RESTATEMENT OF EARNINGS. The Company will, to the extent
permitted by governing law, require reimbursement of any cash or stock-based incentive compensation
paid to any named executive officer (for purposes of this section “named executive officers” has
the meaning given that term in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934) where: (i) the payment was predicated upon the achievement of certain financial results
that were subsequently the subject of a substantial restatement, and (ii) in the Committee’s view
the officer engaged in fraud or misconduct that caused or partially caused the need for the
substantial restatement. In each instance described above, the Company will, to the extent
practicable, seek to recover the described cash or stock-based incentive compensation for the
relevant period, plus a reasonable rate of interest. In addition, with respect to other
Participants, the Committee may make retroactive adjustments to, and the Participant shall
reimburse to the Company, any cash or stock-based incentive compensation paid to the Participant
where such compensation was predicated upon achieving certain financial results that were
substantially the subject of a restatement, and as a result of the restatement it is determined
that the Participant otherwise would not have been paid such compensation, regardless of whether or
not the restatement resulted from the Participant’s misconduct. In each such instance, the Company
will, to the extent practicable, seek to recover the amount by which the Participant’s cash or
stock-based incentive compensation for the relevant period exceeded the lower payment that would
have been made based on the restated financial results.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Covad Communications Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Amendment"), I, Charles E. Hoffman, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Amendment 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 Amendment fairly represents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                            COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.

                            By:            /s/ CHARLES E. HOFFMAN
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                             Charles E. Hoffman
                                President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

Date: November 4, 2004
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies,  in his capacity as an officer of Gene Logic Inc. (the“Company”),  for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

- The Quarterly    report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended March 31, 2004 fully    complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange    Act of 1934; and 
- The information    contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial    condition and results of operations of the Company. 

| Date:  | May 7,      2004 | By:  | /s/      Mark D. Gessler |
|-------------|------------------|-----------|--------------------------|
|        |                  |      |                          |
|        |             |      | Mark D. Gessler          |
|        |             |      | Chief Executive Officer  |

| Date:  | May 7,      2004 | By:  | /s/      Philip L. Rohrer, Jr. |
|-------------|------------------|-----------|--------------------------------|
|        |                  |      |                                |
|        |             |      | Philip L. Rohrer,      Jr.     |
|        |             |      | Chief Financial Officer        |