alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03758

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, July 1, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Telephone status

hearing held on 7/1/2021. Mr. Ruth was not present on the call. Parties reported that fact

discovery has closed, and that they still expect to make the expert discovery deadlines that

were previously set. Expert discovery is to close on 10/6/2021. A telephone status hearing

is set for 10/6/2021 at 9:00 a.m. To join the telephone conference, dial 877−402−9757,

Access Code 4410831. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen to

this hearing. Please be sure to keep your phone on mute when you are not speaking.

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition

against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of

these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media

credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any

other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 73 Filed: 07/01/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:580
2.5”

Magnet and CCR Assembly:

Side View

Cross-section

CCR

Magnet Return Path (1” thick)

10.125” 3.5”

Beam Center

7.5625”

4.0” 6.0” 2.1” 1.0”

0.25” gap to allow for plate 

(if necessary)

Existing Tailset:

Yellow – Vacuum Tail (2 pieces)

Blue – Outer Heat shield (2 pieces)

Red – Sample mount (3 pieces)

Orange - Sample Heater Block

(1.75” ID)

1.875” OD

1.5” OD

3.75”

Note: This is how 

the tail fits into the 

magnet for our 

existing systems. 

6x 1⁄4”-20 tapped through

On 6.375 BC, with helicoil

CCR 

Radial Axis
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FELTON ANTHONY WIGGINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-32-NN, CA-97-52-4)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 27, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles E. Haden, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Joseph

Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Richard

Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Felton Anthony Wiggins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal from the order

denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Wiggins, Nos. CR-91-32-NN;

CA-97-52-4 (E.D. Va. July 1, 1998). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
COMPX INTERNATIONAL INC.'S, CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          48,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                       396
<INVENTORY>                                     15,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,424
<PP&E>                                          46,786
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,657
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,110
<BONDS>                                            988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,380
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,686
<SALES>                                         71,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,815
<CGS>                                           47,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   130
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,191
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,019
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,250
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2




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 Annual Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Todd Weintraub, Chief Financial 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 and belief:





(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Todd
      WeintraubTodd
      WeintraubChief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      27, 2009




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.
Exhibit
32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of NB Capital Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Jean Dagenais, Chief Financial 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 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/ Jean DagenaisJean Dagenais 
Chief Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------

Date:  November 12, 2004

A signed  original  of this  written
 statement  required  by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

---
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-1 Astronauts Headed to International Space Station","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"EtYuh6WgGS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasas-spacex-crew-1-astronauts-headed-to-international-space-station\/\">NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-1 Astronauts Headed to International Space Station<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasas-spacex-crew-1-astronauts-headed-to-international-space-station\/embed\/#?secret=EtYuh6WgGS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-1 Astronauts Headed to International Space Station” — NASA\" data-secret=\"EtYuh6WgGS\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/50606725323_6b93290435_k.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":343}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert CRUZ-AYON, aka Alberto Aguinaga-Ceja, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10328.

D.C. No. CR-03-00033-ECR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 13, 2004.

R. Don Gifford, II, USRE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Michael K. Powell, FPDNV — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Reno), Reno, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Roberto Cruz-Ayon appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

The district court imposed a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) *578based on Cruz-Ayon’s deportation having been subsequent to a drug trafficking conviction that exceeded thirteen months.

Cruz-Ayon contends that after *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), *Ring v. Arizona,*536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), *Blakely v. Washington,*- U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and *United States v. Ameline,*376 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.2004), this enhancement, which resulted in a sentence in excess of the two-year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a), violates the Sixth Amendment because necessary facts — the specific type of the offense and the temporal relationship of the offense to the deportation — were neither admitted by Cruz-Ayon nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

This contention lacks merit. We have continued to hold, after *Apprendi, Ring, Blakely,*and *Ameline,*that § 2L1.2(b) enhancements do not implicate the Sixth Amendment limitation on judicial factfinding. *See United States v. Quintana-Quintana,*383 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2004) (order) (observing that *Apprendi*and *Blakely*preserved the rule that a § 2L1.2 enhancement based on a prior conviction need not be presented to a jury). *See also United States v. Castillo-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.2001) (rejecting contention that the fact of the temporal relationship of the removal to the prior conviction is beyond the scope of Apprendi’s recidivism exception). The judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 413 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 30, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 1502) entitled the ``District of Columbia 
Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997''. The bill shall be considered as 
read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate 
on the bill equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader or his 
designee and a Member opposed to the bill; and (2) one motion to commit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
!"#!$%!&'()'

*+*,
-!./0.12-34#

56+789:;#<=/!3>=%?@A

BB8*
C, !"#!$%!&)'

,DB

85EF-G

C7*HG I='='''J

�K0A0<LG.#!LL01!.A!M04;<.<1!$!.#N&<$!>3&;

BB8*
8HG I='='''J='''

�K0A0<LG.#!LL01!.A!M04;<.<1!$!.#N&<$!>3&;

C,B8*HG I='='''J=OMNI=''

P3$$!.#3.NMO3AQ'=(

,DB**686B+*8

+B.3.?$3@4.3.?$3@4



R86+SBB8*

P3.40/!&<L01.0.1>0#TPHPGU P'')V#T0A<L/!401.<./@4!3K<@#3$<#!//!A0403.4?4#!$4W

 

G.UA#3%!&')#T!PGU #&<#!1?P3@.A0L"@%L04T!/<H<#03.<L #<./<&/3KP<.</<K3&<@#3$<#!/

/!A0403.4?4#!$4X#T!>3&L/Y4K0&4#A3.4!.4@4=%<4!/4#<./<&/T!L"0.13&1<.0Z<#03.4/!401.<./

0$"L!$!.#&!4"3.40%L!<�K0A0<L0.#!LL01!.A![G\43L@#03.4W



IT!PGU #&<#!1?P3@.A0L!.1<1!/3]!&''#T3@1T#L!</!&4<./!^"!K&3$13]!&.$!.#4)0./@4#&?)

<A</!$0<<./A0]0L43A0!#?1&3@"4K&3$A3<4#=#3=A3<4#=#3=A3<4#0./!]!L3"0.1#T!H<#03.<L #<./<&/3K

P<.</<)PHPGU P'')V#T0A<L/!401.<./@4!3K<@#3$<#!//!A0403.4?4#!$4W



PHPGU P''4"!A0K0!4#T!$0.0$@$&!_@0&!$!.#40."&3#!A#0.1T@$<.]<L@!4<./

0.A3&"3&<#0.1!#T0A40.#T!/!401.<./@4!3K<�K0A0<L0.#!LL01!.A![G\@40.1$<AT0.!L!<&.0.1K3&

<@#3$<#!//!A0403.4W



IT04.<#03.<L4#<./<&/13!4%!?3./<A3$$3.4!#3K<4"0&<#03.<L"&0.A0"L!4WG#"&3]0/!4<K&<$!>3&;<./

"&3A!44#T<#A<.%!%3#T$!<4@&!/<./#!4#!/K3&A3.K3&$0#?)"&3]0/0.1A3.4@$!&4>0#TA3.K0/!.A!0.#T!

#!AT.3L310!4#T<#<&!"&3]0/0.10.K3&$<#03.)&!A3$$!./<#03.4)3&$<;0.1/!A0403.4@40.1G<./

$<AT0.!L!<&.0.1W



IT!.<#03.<L4#<./<&/<""L0!4#3<LL3&1<.0Z<#03.40.AL@/0.1"@%L0A<./"&0]<#!A3$"<.0!4)13]!&.$!.#

!.#0#0!4)<./.3#=K3&="&3K0#3&1<.0Z<#03.4)<./T!L"43&1<.0Z<#03.4<//&!44G!#T0A4"&0.A0"L!4)4@AT<4

#T34!/!4A&0%!/%?#T!UVPO



G4T3@L/%!.!K0#"!3"L!<./#T!"L<.!#%?/&0]0.10.AL@40]!1&3>#T)4@4#<0.<%L!/!]!L3"$!.#<./>!LL=

%!0.1W



G4?4#!$44T3@L/%!/!401.!/0.<><?#T<#&!4"!A#4#T!&@L!3KL<>)T@$<.&01T#4)/!$3A&<#0A]<L@!4<./

/0]!&40#?)<./#T!?4T3@L/0.AL@/!<""&3"&0<#!4<K!1@<&/4`K3&!^<$"L!)!.<%L0.1T@$<.0.#!&]!.#03.
	

			






		
	

	


	


		

			





	
			



	
	



	
				



	 	
	!	!




	

	
	




	
!
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONFURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PliantCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter endedMarch 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold C. Bevis, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Harold  C. Bevis     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Harold C.  Bevis         |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| May 14, 2004             |   |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

WHAM−O HOLDING, LTD., et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−04196

Honorable Matthew F.

Kennelly

The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations

Identified on Schedule "A", et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, December 21, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: All remaining

defendants having been dismissed, the clerk is directed to terminate this case. Any hearing

before this Court is stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (mma, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04196 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/21/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2420
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60180 USDC No. 1:99-CV-59-RG

JEFFREY D. GALLAND, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

-------------------- September 13, 1999 Before POLITZ, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jeffrey Galland, Mississippi prisoner # R3160, has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of Galland’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. Galland’s petition contained both habeas claims (his challenges to his various sentencings, his rule violation report, the condition of his sentence that he had to marry or have his house arrest revoked, and the revocation of his house arrest) and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim (his assertions that he was not allowed toNo. 99-60180 -2-

attend Sunday services). We construe his request for COA as both a request for COA for his habeas claims and an appeal of the dismissal of his civil rights claims. To obtain a COA to appeal the dismissal of his habeas claims for failure to exhaust, Galland must make a credible showing of that he exhausted state remedies. See Murphy v. Johnson , 110 F.3d at 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997). Galland has not made such a showing, and his request for COA is denied. With respect to Galland’s civil rights claim, the district court should have separated out the § 1983 claim and addressed it. See Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center , 136 F.3d 458, 463-64 (5th Cir. 1998) (when a § 2254 petition contains both habeas and § 1983 claims, the district court should separate the claims); see also United States v. Santora , 711 F.2d 41, 42 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983) (the essence of a claim dictates the type of claim it is as opposed to the title affixed to the pleading). Accordingly, Galland’s request for COA to appeal the dismissal of his habeas claims is DENIED. The district court’s dismissal of Galland’s civil rights claim is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Galland’s motion to expedite his appeal is DENIED.
#### Cyrus H. Fountain v. Mayor, etc., of Jackson.

*Municipal corporaMons*— Reduction *of salary.*

'The charter of Jackson provides that the compensation of the superintendent of public works shall be fixed by the board of public works and approved by the common council. *Held,*that the council alone could not reduce it.

Error to Jackson. (Grid ley, J.)

Jan. 5.

Jan. 17.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

City Attorney *Chas. A. Blow*for appellant.

Gibson, *Parkinson*& *Ashley*for appellee.

Marston, J.

This ease appears to have been tried upon ■the merits, and no objection seems to have been made to the form of remedy. Under the finding of facts, the judgment rendered was correct, and as the city has not therefore been injured we are not inclined to consider the question raised for the first time in this Court.

The plaintiff was by the board of public works of the city ■of Jackson appointed superintendent. The charter pro*16vided that his compensation, should be fixed by the board and approved by the common council. This was done in 1876, and his salary was fixed at $1200 per year and approved. No change was made or attempted until March, 1880, when the common council of its own motion attempted to reduce his salary to $1000, and yet they continued for the greater part of the year to pay his salary monthly at the old rate of $1200 per year.

Neither under the charter of 1875 nor the amendment of 1877, (Local Acts, 1877, p. 474) did the council have power to fix plaintiff’s salary. It was and remained for the board of public works so to do, subject to the approval of the council. '

It follows that the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
MobileID Worksh

September 19, 2007 

mccabe@nist.gov 
Goals of Worksho

• Overview of some current systems 

• Vendor panel addressing perspectiv

performance, interoperability and fut

• Discuss minimum set of operational 

for enrollment, identification, verifica

• Submissions to FBI • Mobile ID device features & certifica• Security aspects • Network paths