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

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 15 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

LEROY AUSTIN HANCOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES SAFFLE; MICHAEL D.

PARSONS, Deputy Director,

Oklahoma Department of Corrections,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-5116

(N.D. Okla.)

(D.Ct. No. 95-CV-66-K)

____________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, MCKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

Leroy Austin Hancock, an inmate within the Oklahoma Department of

Corrections, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a number of policies

and actions by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and its officials violated

his First Amendment right to freedom of religion in the prison. After hearing the

evidence, the district court denied Mr. Hancock’s request for injunctive relief and
-2-

dismissed the action. Mr. Hancock timely filed an appeal in this court. However,

Mr. Hancock completed his sentence, was discharged, and was released from

confinement after filing his notice of appeal. There was no period of supervision

required. Prior to oral argument before this court, the defendants moved to

dismiss this case as moot. Counsel for Mr. Hancock appeared at oral argument

and informed the panel he was unable to locate his client and thus was unable to

ascertain whether his client would agree to dismiss this case.

“This court will dismiss an appeal as moot, when pending an appeal from

the judgment of a lower court, ... an event occurs which renders it impossible ...

to grant [the appellant] any effectual relief whatever....” In re Material Witness

Warrant Nichols, 77 F.3d 1277, 1279 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and

citations omitted.) Because Mr. Hancock only requested injunctive relief and has

now been released from confinement, his appeal is moot. See Green v. Branson,

108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997) (a plaintiff/inmate’s claims for injunctive

relief were mooted when the inmate was released from prison). See also

McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding an

inmate’s claims for injunctive relief concerning the conditions of confinement

become moot when the inmate is released, notwithstanding the inmate’s parole or

supervised release status).
-3-

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS as moot the appeal from the order

denying injunctive relief.

Entered by the Court:

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00002

- CR

E DDIBERTO L OPEZ

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 432nd District

Court

of Tarra nt County (1496518D)

February 20, 2020

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed

.

SECOND DI STRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

_________________ Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
Opinion issued December 20, 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 2 - 0 1099 - CR

——————————— IN RE SAMUEL RO Y JACKSON , Relator

Original Proceeding on Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator , Samuel Ro y Jackson , has filed , pro se , a petition for writ of mandamus , “seeking relief from a void judgment and void court order ” rendered on October 28, 2004

. Jackson contends that the trial court had no jurisdiction to render the order, making its judgment void. Jackson further contends that the trial court erroneously reinstated the indictment on which he was convicted after its2

dismissal, did not have j urisdiction over the first or reinstated indictment , conducted a subsequent trial when there was no evidence to support his conviction, and refused to allow an impaneled jury to render its verdict

. Jackson’s petition is for the purpose of obtaining relief from his felony conviction of the offense of aggravated robbery

. On November 17, 2005, this Court aff irmed Jackson’s conviction , making it final. Jackson v. State , No. 01

- 04

- 01137

- CR, 2005 WL 3072018 , at *4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 17, 2005, pet. withdrawn). The exclusive remedy from final felony convictions is a writ of habeas corpus. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.07 (West 2005). Only t he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post

- conviction habeas corpus proceedings. See id. ; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717

– 18 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Thus, this Court is without authority to grant the relief that Jackson seeks. See Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene , 910 S.W.2d at 483; In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d at 717

– 18; In re Murphy , No. 01

- 11

- 00120

- CR , 2011 WL 1326032 , at *1 ( Tex. App.

— Hous ton [1 Dist.] Apr. 7, 2011 , orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

. We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction

. All pending motions are denied.3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings , Higley, and Sharp

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 30, 2012 

d0123 

Order 

 

January 30, 2012 

143569(25) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143569 

 COA: 304623 

Calhoun CC: 1995-000817-FC 

BRIAN ANDR’E WARREN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

21, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-15-00645- CV In re Mar co Antonio Mer cado ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The petition for writ of habea s corpus is dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.05 (listing courts with authority to issue writ of habe as cor

pus in criminal proce eding s).

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland Filed: Oc tober 14, 2015
257 La. 862

#### The JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana, etc. v. James R. STRAIN.

No. 51217.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1971.

In re: James R. Strain applying for supervisory writs and stay order.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which would interfere with the orderly procedure of the hearing below.
# C_2023216EN.01001001.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt X v Y

(Case C-516/21, (1) Finanzamt X (Permanently installed equipment and machinery))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) - Exceptions to the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(l) - Letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery in the context of the leasing of an agricultural building)

(2023/C 216/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt X

Defendant: Y

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as not applying to the letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery where that letting constitutes a supply ancillary to a principal supply of leasing a building, carried out under a leasing agreement concluded between the same parties and exempt under Article 135(1)(l) of that directive, and those supplies form a single economic supply.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---
#### Anthony L. POWELL and Louis A. Powell, Appellants, v. Gilbert E. HAIN et al., Appellees.

No. 71-457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  September 9, 2004



| | /s/ Marc T. Giles                     | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| | Marc T. Giles
Chief Executive Officer | 



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.  This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.
<page>					  EXHIBIT 32.01



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 Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.








By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		March 15, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 375 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 375

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 2, 1994.
Whereas the House is on notice pursuant to rule IX that it may soon consider a 
        proposal to direct the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to 
        investigate the former operations of the House Post Office;
Whereas matters relating to the former operations of the House Post Office are 
        the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the United States 
        Attorney for the District of Columbia;
Whereas, pursuant to its rules, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
        traditionally defers inquiry with respect to a matter that is the 
        subject of an ongoing investigation by an appropriate law enforcement or 
        regulatory authority;
Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has on several occasions 
        agreed to defer inquiry with respect to the former operations of the 
        House Post Office, and has deferred inquiry in other matters regarding 
        current Members where investigations by other authorities are 
        proceeding;
Whereas, by letters of November 25, 1992, September 9, 1993, and October 26, 
        1993, then Assistant Attorney General Lee Rawls, then United States 
        Attorney J. Ramsey Johnson, and current United States Attorney Eric 
        Holder, respectively, requested that the Committee on Standards of 
        Official Conduct defer any inquiry into the former operations of the 
        House Post Office and related matters;
Whereas, on February 23, 1994, the United States Attorney for the District of 
        Columbia delivered the following letter to the Speaker and the 
        Republican Leader:
  
  
  
Whereas the House should exercise particular caution so as not to impede, delay, 
        or otherwise interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation that may 
        involve its own Members: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House supports the decision of the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct to defer inquiry on matters relating to the former operation 
of the House Post Office; and be it
    Further resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
continue to consult with the United States Attorney and continue to review its 
decision to defer inquiry in this matter. At such time as the Committee 
determines that a Committee inquiry would no longer interfere with the criminal 
investigation, the Committee shall proceed, pursuant to its rules, with such 
inquiry as it deems appropriate.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
GENOVESE DRUG STORES, INC.

EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Twelve Weeks Ended             Forty Weeks Ended
                                                    --------------------------     ----------------------------
                                                    November 7,    November 8,     November 7,      November 8,
                                                        1997          1996            1997            1996
                                                    -----------    -----------     -----------      -----------
<S>                                                 <C>            <C>             <C>              <C>
Primary:

Weighted average shares outstanding (A)               12,419          12,233          12,381          12,221

Equivalent shares-dilutive stock options (B)              --              --              --              --
                                                     -------         -------         -------         -------

                                                      12,419          12,233          12,381          12,221
                                                     =======         =======         =======         =======

Net income                                           $   517         $ 2,351         $ 3,629         $ 5,452
                                                     =======         =======         =======         =======

Net income per common share (A)                      $   .04         $   .19         $   .29         $   .45
                                                     =======         =======         =======         =======
</TABLE>


(A)  Adjusted, where appropriate, to reflect the effect of the 10 percent stock
     dividend distributed on January 14, 1997.


(B)  The effect of equivalent shares of dilutive stock options is not
     significant to net income per common share for any period presented.


       There is no significant difference between primary and fully diluted net
income per common share.



                                       -9-
#### Paul S. THEODORE, Appellant, v. I. D. VOLDNESS, Appellee.

No. 70-259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IV

House Calendar No. 246

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 574

[Report No. 103–845]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (S. 1569) to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish,

reauthorize and revise provisions to improve the health of individuals

from disadvantaged backgrounds, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, OCTOBER 6), 1994

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (S. 1569) to amend the Public Health

Service Act to establish, reauthorize and revise provisions

to improve the health of individuals from disadvantaged

backgrounds, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (S. 1569) to amend the Public Health

4 Service Act to establish, reauthorize and revise provisions

5 to improve the health of individuals from disadvantaged
2

HRES 574 RH

1 backgrounds, and for other purposes. All points of order

2 against the conference report and against its consideration

3 are waived. The conference report shall be considered as

4 read.

House Calendar No. 246

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 574

[Report No. 103–845]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference regrounds, and for other purposes. health of individuals from disadvantaged back- thorize and revise provisions to improve the the Public Health Service Act to establish, reau- port to accompany the bill (S. 1569) to amend

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, OCTOBER 6), 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00138-CV

______________________________

IN RE: ROWENA J. DANIELS

 

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

 

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rowena J. Daniels has filed a petition seeking habeas corpus relief from this Court. She is

presently incarcerated in the Hopkins County Jail for six months after having been held in contempt

by the 62nd Judicial District Court. It appears from her petition that the trial court entered an order

disbarring Daniels from the practice of law in 2003. The State Bar/Commission for Lawyer

Discipline sought and obtained an order of contempt based on her violation of that order.

Daniels raises several issues, each of which is based upon alleged shortcomings in the facts

proven at the contempt hearing.

As attachments to her petition, Daniels has provided us with a copy of several of the relevant

documents, including the motion for contempt and order of contempt. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7.

However, there is no record from the hearing on the contempt proceeding, and it appears that none

has been requested. 

The relator has the burden to establish that the evidence does not support the lower court's

contempt order, Ex parte Barlow, 899 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995,

orig. proceeding), and to conclusively show the entitlement to the writ, In re Pruitt, 6 S.W.3d 363,

364 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1999, orig. proceeding). Thus, the relator must bring forward an

adequate record to establish the invalidity of the order of which he complains. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7; In re Lausch, 177 S.W.3d 144, 150, 155–56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig.

proceeding). In reviewing an order of contempt, this Court must take into consideration the entire
3

record, including evidence offered at the contempt hearing, to determine whether due process has

been accorded the relator. Ex parte Cardwell, 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967) (orig. proceeding);

Ex parte Elmore, 161 Tex. 585, 342 S.W.2d 558, 561 (1961) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Cox, 479

S.W.2d 110, 113 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1972, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Fiedler,

446 S.W.2d 698, 700 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1969, orig. proceeding).

In the absence of an adequate record to establish the invalidity of the order, and in the

absence of a complete reporter's record, this Court will presume that the evidence supported the trial

court's contempt judgment. See Ex parte Savelle, 398 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1966).

We deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: December 4, 2008

Date Decided: December 5, 2008