Filed: November 20, 1996

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-2141

Penn Advertising of Baltimore, Incorporated,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, etc., et

al,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER

The Court amends its opinion filed November 13, 1996, as

follows:

On page 2, section 5 -- the counsel information is deleted and

replaced with the following:

Eric Michael Rubin, Walter E. Diercks, Jeffrey Harris,

Darrin N. Sacks, RUBIN, WINSTON, DIERCKS, HARRIS & COOKE,

Washington, D.C.; Andrew L. Frey, Kenneth S. Geller, Gary

A. Orseck, H. Thomas Byron, III, MAYER, BROWN & PLATT,

Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Neal M. Janey, City

Solicitor, Burton Harry Levin, Principal Counsel, Sandra

R. Gutman, Associate Solicitor, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Richard E. Wiley,

Lawrence W. Secrest, III, Howard H. Bell, Daniel E. Troy,

Luis de la Torre, WILEY, REIN & FIELDING, Washington,

D.C., for Amici Curiae American Advertising Federation,

et al. Mark S. Yurick, Senior Assistant City Solicitor,
-2-

Office of the City Solicitor, CITY OF CINCINNATI,

Cincinnati, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae City of Cincinnati.

Daniel J. Popeo, Richard A. Samp, WASHINGTON LEGAL

FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae

Washington Legal Foundation. Donald Garner, Professor of

Law, SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, Carbondale, Illinois;

THE MARYLAND CONGRESS OF PARENTS & TEACHERS, INC.,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Amicus Curiae Maryland Congress.

Christopher J. Fritz, Julie Ellen Squire, Thomas C. Dame,

GALLAGHER, EVELIUS & JONES, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Amici Curiae Coalition for Beautiful Neighborhoods, et

al. Louise H. Renne, City Attorney, Dennis Aftergut,

Chief Assistant City Attorney, Barbara Solomon, Deputy

City Attorney, John Cooper, Deputy City Attorney, San

Francisco, California; Joan Gallo, City Attorney, George

Rios, Assistant City Attorney, San Jose, California, for

Amici Curiae City of San Francisco, et al. Frank W.

Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas N. Letter,

Appellate Litigation Counsel, Scott R. McIntosh,

Appellate Staff, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae United

States.

On page 3, lines 9-10 of the opinion -- the citation is

corrected to read "Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, ___ F.3d ___,

No. 94-1431 (4th Cir. Nov. 13, 1996) ( Anheuser-Busch II) . . . ."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PENN ADVERTISING OF BALTIMORE,

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

BALTIMORE, A Municipal Corporation;

KURT L. SCHMOKE, in his official

capacity as Mayor of Baltimore City;

DAVID TANNER, in his official capacity

as the General Superintendent of

Zoning Administration and

Enforcement of Baltimore City,

Defendants-Appellees.

THE AMERICAN ADVERTISING

FEDERATION; THE AMERICAN

No. 94-2141

ASSOCIATION OF ADVERTISING AGENCIES;

THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL

ADVERTISERS, INCORPORATED; THE

OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICA, INCORPORATED; WASHINGTON

LEGAL FOUNDATION; THE CITY OF

CINCINNATI, OHIO; THE MARYLAND

CONGRESS OF PARENTS & TEACHERS,

INCORPORATED; THE COALITION FOR

BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOODS; BALTIMORE

CITY WIDE LIQUOR COALITION FOR

BETTER LAWS AND REGULATIONS; CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; CITY

OF SAN JOSE; UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA,

Amici Curiae.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

(S. Ct. No. 95-806)

Decided on Remand: November 13, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the majority

opinion, in which Judge Hamilton joined. Senior Judge Butzner wrote

a dissenting opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eric Michael Rubin, Walter E. Diercks, Jeffrey Harris, Darrin N. Sacks, RUBIN, 

WINSTON, DIERCKS, HARRIS & COOKE, Washington, D.C.; Andrew L. Frey, 

Kenneth S. Geller, Gary A. Orseck, H. Thomas Byron, III, MAYER, BROWN 

& PLATT, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Neal M. Janey, City Solicitor, 

Burton Harry Levin, Principal Counsel, Sandra R. Gutman, Associate Solicitor, 

DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Richard E. Wiley, 

Lawrence W. Secrest, III, Howard H. Bell, Daniel E. Troy, Luis de la Torre, 

WILEY, REIN & FIELDING, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae American 

Advertising Federation, et al. Mark S. Yurick, Senior Assistant City Solicitor,

Office of the City Solicitor, CITY OF CINCINNATI, Cincinnati, Ohio, for 

Amicus Curiae City of Cincinnati. Daniel J. Popeo, Richard A. Samp, 

WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae 

Washington Legal Foundation. Donald Garner, Professor of Law, SOUTHERN

ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, Carbondale, Illinois; THE MARYLAND CONGRESS 

OF PARENTS & TEACHERS, INC., Baltimore, Maryland, for Amicus Curiae 

Maryland Congress. Christopher J. Fritz, Julie Ellen Squire, Thomas C. Dame,

GALLAGHER, EVELIUS & JONES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amici Curiae 

Coalition for Beautiful Neighborhoods, et al. Louise H. Renne, City Attorney, 

Dennis Aftergut, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Barbara Solomon, Deputy 

City Attorney, John Cooper, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco, California;

 2
Joan Gallo, City Attorney, George Rios, Assistant City Attorney, San Jose, California, for Amici Curiae City of San Francisco, et al. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant 

Attorney General, Douglas N. Letter, Appellate Litigation Counsel, Scott R. McIntosh, 

Appellate Staff, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae United States.

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

On May 13, 1996, The Supreme Court handed down its decision

in 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495 (1996), and

shortly thereafter vacated our decision in this case and remanded it to

us "for further consideration in light of 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode

Island." 116 S. Ct. 2575 (1996). We have read the opinion in 44

Liquormart and have considered its impact on the judgment in this

case. For the reasons given in Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, 63

F.3d 1305 (4th Cir. 1995) (Anheuser-Busch I), as modified by our

decision today in Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, ___ F.3d ___,

No. 94-1431 (4th Cir. Nov. 13, 1996) (Anheuser-Busch II), we conclude that 44

Liquormart does not require us to change our decision in this case.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons

previously given and readopt our previous decision as modified by

Anheuser-Busch II. See Penn Adv. of Baltimore v. Mayor and City

Council of Baltimore, 63 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 1995).

IT IS SO ORDERED

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I dissent for reasons that I explained in my dissent in No. 94-1431,

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, and No. 94-1432, Penn Advertising

of Baltimore, Inc. v. Curran.

 3