alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### East Tennessee Telephone Co. v. Board of Councilmen of the City of Frankfort, et al.

(Decided April 10, 1911.)

A city may, upon reasonable notice, revoke a bare license to a telephone company to erect poles in the streets of the city. (See original opinion East Tenn. Tel. Co. v. Board of Councilmen of City of Frankfort, 141 Ky. 588.)

HUMPHREY *&*HUMPHREY, IRA JUDIAN, W. L. GRANBERY and W. PRATT DALE for appellant.

SCOTT *&*HAMILTON, G. H. BRIGGS and T. HITER CROCKETT for appellee.

Response by

Chief Justice Hobson

Overruling Petition.

In Trustees of Southampton v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 122, the opinion of the court is rested upon the ground that there was a grant of a franchise, and not a mere license. In Hudson Telephone Co. v. Jersey City, 49 N. J. L. 303, there was a statute authorizing the grant, by the council of the use of the street to the telephone company; and it was held that the grant, having been made pursuant to the statute could not be revoked. The case turned, really, on the previous cases construing the statute. People v. Central Union Telephone Co., 192 Ill. 307, follows Chicago City Ry. Co. v. People, 73 Ill., 541, and Chicago Municipal Gas Light Co. v. Town of Lake, 130 Ill. 42, and rests upon a similar statute. Arcata v. Arcata, &c. R. R. Co., 92 Cal. 639, involved the grant of'a right of way to a railroad, and seems to be rested on the gróund that a license could not be revoked after the grantee had acted upon it and expended money in the construction of the road.

The rule that a license may not be revoked after the grantee has made expenditures upon the faith of it, is not maintained in many jurisdictions; and we are not willing to apply it, at least in the case of municipal bodies; for the reason that they represent the people, and all who deal with them must take notice of the limitations *87npon their authority. The streets of the city are laid ont for the convenience of the public. The city holds the title to them for the use of the public. The city authorities may regulate them for the public use, but they should have the power, from time to time as the public requires, to do all those things necessary for the public good. The city council, which gives a mere permission to another to use the streets of a city in a certain way, should not be held by this to part, permanently, with the control of the subject. Thirty years have elapsed since the license here was granted.

The natural meaning of the language of the ordinance before ns is that the telephone company is given permission to place its poles on the streets, and to carry the wires across the city bridge. The ordinance is silent as to any grant of a right; it does not purport to grant a franchise; it does not grant the right to maintain the poles in the street, except as this may be inferred from the permission .to erect them there. The bare permission to erect the poles on the streets would, *prima facie,*mean nothing more than that they might be maintained there at the pleasure of the council. Grants of this sort by a city council should not be extended by construction beyond the fair meaning of the words used.

Petition overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
June 30, 1996 financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements. EPS amounts have been
restated to reflect the Company's adoption of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 128, "Earnings Per Share" as of December 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          29,285
<SECURITIES>                                    12,498
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,358
<PP&E>                                         651,017
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 882,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,052
<BONDS>                                        399,393
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,840
<COMMON>                                           362
<OTHER-SE>                                     269,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   882,281
<SALES>                                         66,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,951
<CGS>                                           19,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,047
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (434)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,613
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
        
    


</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of NBC
Capital Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lewis F. Mallory, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 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) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.Name:

Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.Title:

Chairman of the Board andChief Executive OfficerDate:

August 8, 2005




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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1985

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to lower the adjusted gross

income threshold for deductible disaster casualty losses to 5 percent,

to make such deduction an above-the-line deduction, and to allow an

election to take such deduction for the preceding or succeeding year.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Mr. TORRICELLI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to lower the

adjusted gross income threshold for deductible disaster

casualty losses to 5 percent, to make such deduction

an above-the-line deduction, and to allow an election

to take such deduction for the preceding or succeeding

year.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO DISASTER CASUALTY LOSS

4 DEDUCTION.

5 (a) LOWER ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME THRESH6 OLD.—Paragraph (2) of section 165(h) of the Internal
2

•S 1985 IS

1 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of casualty

2 gains and losses) is amended—

3 (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting

4 the following:

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the personal cas6 ualty losses for any taxable year exceed the per7 sonal casualty gains for such taxable year, such

8 losses shall be allowed for the taxable year only

9 to the extent of the sum of—

10 ‘‘(i) the amount of the personal cas11 ualty gains for the taxable year, plus

12 ‘‘(ii) so much of such excess attrib13 utable to losses described in subsection (i)

14 as exceeds 5 percent of the adjusted gross

15 income of the individual (determined with16 out regard to any deduction allowable

17 under subsection (c)(3))’’, plus

18 ‘‘(iii) so much of such excess attrib19 utable to losses not described in subsection

20 (i) as exceeds 10 percent of the adjusted

21 gross income of the individual.

22 For purposes of this subparagraph, personal

23 casualty losses attributable to losses not de24 scribed in subsection (i) shall be considered be-
3

•S 1985 IS

1 fore such losses attributable to losses described

2 in subsection (i).’’, and

3 (2) by striking ‘‘10 PERCENT’’ in the heading

4 and inserting ‘‘PERCENTAGE’’.

5 (b) ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION.—Section 62(a)

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted

7 gross income) is amended by inserting after paragraph

8 (17) the following:

9 ‘‘(18) CERTAIN DISASTER LOSSES.—The deduc10 tion allowed by section 165(c)(3) to the extent at11 tributable to losses described in section 165(i).’’

12 (c) ELECTION TO TAKE DISASTER LOSS DEDUCTION

13 FOR PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING 2 YEARS.—Paragraph

14 (1) of section 165(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

15 (relating to disaster losses) is amended—

16 (1) by inserting ‘‘or succeeding’’ after ‘‘pre17 ceding’’, and

18 (2) by inserting ‘‘OR SUCCEEDING’’ after ‘‘PRE19 CEDING’’ in the heading.

20 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

21 this section shall apply to losses sustained in taxable years

22 beginning after December 31, 1998.

Æ
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1750

To reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 19, 1999

Mr. DEWINE (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. KOHL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Abuse Preven5 tion and Enforcement Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM.

7 Section 102(b) of the Crime Identification Tech8 nology Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601(b)) is amended by

9 striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (15), by striking
2

•S 1750 IS

1 the period at the end of paragraph (16) and inserting ‘‘;

2 and’’, and by adding after paragraph (16) the following:

3 ‘‘(17) the capability of the criminal justice sys4 tem to deliver timely, accurate, and complete crimi5 nal history record information to child welfare agen6 cies, organizations, and programs that are engaged

7 in the assessment of risk and other activities related

8 to the protection of children, including protection

9 against child sexual abuse, and placement of chil10 dren in foster care.’’.

11 SEC. 3. USE OF FUNDS UNDER BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM

12 FOR CHILD PROTECTION.

13 Section 501(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con14 trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751) is

15 amended—

16 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

17 (25);

18 (2) by striking the period at the end of para19 graph (26) and adding ‘‘; and’’; and

20 (3) by adding at the end the following:

21 ‘‘(27) enforcing child abuse and neglect laws,

22 including laws protecting against child sexual abuse,

23 and promoting programs designed to prevent child

24 abuse and neglect.’’.
3

•S 1750 IS

1 SEC. 4. CONDITIONAL ADJUSTMENT IN SET ASIDE FOR

2 CHILD ABUSE VICTIMS UNDER THE VICTIMS

3 OF CRIME ACT OF 1984.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1402(d)(2) of the Victims

5 of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(2)) is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(2) the next $10,000,000’’ and

8 inserting ‘‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subpara9 graph (B), the next $10,000,000’’; and

10 (2) by adding at the end the following:

11 ‘‘(B)(i) For any fiscal year for which the

12 amount deposited in the Fund is greater than the

13 amount deposited in the Fund for fiscal year 1998,

14 the $10,000,000 referred to in subparagraph (A)

15 plus an amount equal to 50 percent of the increase

16 in the amount from fiscal year 1998 shall be avail17 able for grants under section 1404A.

18 ‘‘(ii) Amounts available under this subpara19 graph for any fiscal year shall not exceed

20 $20,000,000.’’.

21 (b) INTERACTION WITH ANY CAP.—Subsection (a)

22 shall be implemented so that any increase in funding pro23 vided thereby shall operate notwithstanding any dollar

24 limitation on the availability of the Crime Victims Fund

25 established under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10731]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Sunday, June 27, 2010, Monday, June 28, 
2010 and Tuesday, June 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Committee will be held Sunday, June 27, 2010, from 2 p.m. to 6 
p.m., Monday, June 28, 2010 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, June 
29, 2010 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Central Time in Milwaukee, WI. The 
public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements 
for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made 
with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley at 1-
888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 
West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to 
the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: May 3, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-10731 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### RYAN et al., Respondents, *v.*MAXEY, Appellant.

[Submitted October 1, 1894.

Decided November 8, 1894.]

Appealable *Obdek*— Taxation *of costs.*— An order entered on motion to retax the costs of an appeal to the supreme court upon return of the *remittitur*is a special order made after final judgment, and therefore appealable. *(Bader*v. *Nottngliam,*2 Mont. 157; *Orr*v. *Haskell,*2 Mont. 350; *First Nat. Hank*v. *Neill,*13 Mont. 377, distinguished.)

*Appeal from Ninth Judicial District, Gallatin County.*

On motion to dismiss an appeal from an order retaxing costs.

Denied.

*E. P. Cadwell,*for the motion.

*Luce & Luce, Contra.*

Per Cueiam.

— The judgment of the district court in this case in favor of defendant was affirmed by this court on appeal on January 29, 1894 (14 Mont. 81).

Upon return of *remittitur*to the district court defendant, Daniel Maxey, filed his verified memorandum of costs, on appeal to the supreme court. Plaintiff then moved to retax these costs as to one item. This motion was sustained. From that order defendant has appealed to this court. The respondents on this appeal now move to dismiss the same, on the ground that such order is not appealable. They rely upon *Rader*v. *Nottingham,*2 Mont. 157, and *Orr*v. *Haskell, 2*Mont. 350. (See, also, *First Nat. Bank*v. *Neill,*13 Mont. 377.) In these cases it was held that an order taxing or retax-ing costs was not itself appealable, but that the same could be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment. But the costs there considered were the original costs of the case, which went into the judgment of the district court in the case. The costs now in question are not costs which entered into the judgment pronounced by the district court; nor could they in any manner be a part of the original judgment, for the reason that they were incurred after such judgment was rendered, and upon appeal from the same. The original judgment was complete before the appeal was taken, and must have been a judgment before appeal could have been taken therefrom. Therefore, the *101costs of appeal from the judgment could not have been reviewed on such appeal, for they were not part of the judgment of the district court, and could not have been. There is not now an appeal from the original district court judgment to bring up the costs under consideration, because that appeal has already been heard and determined. Thus the cases above cited are wholly inapplicable. The order retaxing costs of appeal on *remittitur*filed in the district court is a special order made after final judgment, and iu the nature of things could be nothing else. It is therefore appealable, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Another point made upon the motion to dismiss raises the consideration of the merits of the appeal, and will not be considered now.

*Motion denied.*

All concur.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) The undersigned executive officer of Bar Harbor Bankshares (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-Q/A for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (Item 601(b)(32)) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act) and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (a) shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to liability under that section, and (b) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.


|                      |                                                                                      
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  March 29, 2013 | /s/ Gerald Shencavitz                                                                
|                      |                                                                                      
|                      | Name:  Gerald Shencavitz
Title:  Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Bar Harbor Bankshares and will be retained by Bar Harbor Bankshares and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1799

For the relief of Sergio Lozano.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 27, 1999

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Sergio Lozano.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SERGIO

4 LOZANO.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Sergio Lozano shall be eligible for issuance of an im8 migrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien

9 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an

10 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec11 tion 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful

12 permanent resident.
2

S 1799 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Sergio Lozano en2 ters the United States before the filing deadline specified

3 in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have entered

4 and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be

5 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the

6 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the en7 actment of this Act.

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate

12 fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this

13 Act.

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

15 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res16 idence to Sergio Lozano, the Secretary of State shall in17 struct the proper officer to reduce by one, during the cur18 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im19 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the

20 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the

21 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the

22 total number of immigrant visas that are made available

23 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section

24 202(e) of such Act.

Æ