alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO

. 09

- 1 3

- 00 562

- C V



### ____________________ MARCELINO RODRIGUEZ, DONNA JEAN FORGAS AND LINDA MARIE WILTZ GILMORE , Appellant s

V.

B EAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, WOODROW REECE, TERRY D. WILLIAMS, JANICE BRASSARD, GWEN AMBRES AND

ZENOBIA RANDALL BUSH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES OF DEFENDANT BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT , Appellee s

_______________________________________________________ _____ _________ On A ppeal from the 172nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No

. E

- 194,295

________________________________________________________ _____________ ORDER
On December 9, 2013, the trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and
special exceptions of Marcelino Rodriguez, Donna Jean Forgas and Linda Marie

Wiltz Gilmore to the counterclaim filed by Beaumont Independent School District,
Woodrow Reece, Terry D. Williams, Janice Brassard, Gwen Ambres and Zenobia2 Randall Bush in their Respective Official Capacity as Trustees of Defendant
Beaumont Independent School District . The trial court granted permi ssion to
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3 . The parties dispute whether the trial court has

ruled on a controlling issue of law in the case that an immediate appeal of the order
would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (d) (West Supp. 2013)

. After reviewing the petition requesting permission to appeal and the
response to the petition, we deny the petition for permission to appeal. The appeal
will be dismissed on January 23
, 2014.

ORDER ENTERED January 9, 2014.

PER CURIAM
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
# C_2021297EN.01002001.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 12 April 2021 — Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes ASBL, NG, WL v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-234/21)

(2021/C 297/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes ASBL, NG, WL

Defendant: Conseil des ministres

Question referred

Does Article 7(4a) of Directive 91/477/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with points 6 to 9 of category A of Part II of Annex 1 to that directive, infringe Articles 17(1), 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that it does not allow Member States to provide for transitional arrangements for firearms covered by category A.9 which were lawfully acquired and registered before 13 June 2017, whereas it allows them to provide for transitional arrangements for firearms covered by categories A.6 to A.8 which were lawfully acquired and registered before 13 June 2017?

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons ( OJ 1991 L 256, p. 51).

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE DOCTORS MAKING HOUSECALLS, LLC

______________________ 

2013-1553

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in Serial No. 

85324528.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ERIC P. STEVENS, Poyner Spruill, LLP, of Raleigh, 

North Carolina, argued for appellant. With him on the 

brief was JOHN W. O’HALE. 

BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, Associate Solicitor, Office of 

the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 

of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on 

the brief were NATHAN K. KELLEY, Solicitor, and 

CHRISTINA J. HIEBER, Associate Solicitor.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

March 10, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
#### Gaster vs. Hodgins.

Where the verdict ia directly against evidence, this Court will order a new trial-

*Appeal from Drew Circuit Court.*

Hon. Tiieodoric F. Sorrells, Circuit Judge.

*469Winter, and Bell & Carlton, for appellant.

Harrison, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the,opinion of the court.

To assumpsit for labor brought by Hodgins against Gaster, the latter pleaded non-assumpsit, set-off and recoupment, and issues upon these pleas were submitted to the jury. The verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff in the sum of one hundred and ten dollars. Defendant moved for a new trial, for the verdict being against evidence, which the court overruled.

The evidence shows conclusively that the plaintiff and defendant had a settlement, and that the defendant paid plaintiff more than his own or all the evidence in the case proves he had earned.

The verdict was not only without, but directly against the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted.
# C_2022463EN.01003602.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — Serrano Velázquez v Parliament

(Case T-589/21) (1)

(Institutional law - Petitions Committee of the Parliament - Petition concerning the infringement by the Spanish authorities of EU law in the field of fundamental rights - Decision to dismiss the petition - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 463/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: María Teresa Serrano Velázquez (Seville, Spain) (represented by: F. B. Vázquez Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and I. Liukkonen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision D 304048 of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament, adopted on 8 June 2021 and notified on 13 July 2021, declaring inadmissible her petition (No 242/2021) concerning the failure to comply with the measures for the protection and guarantee of the fundamental rights of whistle-blowers in relation to corruption which she claims has affected her.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms María Teresa Serrano Velázquez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms María Teresa Serrano Velázquez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---
257 La. 620

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Jimmy Lee THRASHER v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51153.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1971.

In re: Jimmy Lee Thrasher applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Applicant is not entitled to relief under his complaint here.
# C_2021368EN.01001201.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 July 2021 — Ministero dell’Interno v TO

(Case C-422/21)

(2021/C 368/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministero dell’Interno

Respondent: TO

Question referred

Does Article 20(4) and (5) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (1) preclude national legislation which provides for the withdrawal of reception measures from adult applicants who are not categorised as ‘vulnerable persons’, if such an applicant is deemed to have engaged in particularly violent behaviour outside the accommodation centre involving the use of physical force against public officials and/or public servants, causing such injuries to the victims that they were required to seek emergency treatment?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, J. Scott Kamsler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge, the Annual Report of Exar Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended March 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Exar Corporation.

Date:
June 13, 2008



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/    J. SCOTT KAMSLER                          
|J. Scott Kamsler                                 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: APPOINTMENT TO CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE : : : No. 631 CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET
**O R D E R**
**PER CURIA M:** 

AND NOW , this 20 th day of October , 2015, John J. Hare , Esquire, Philadelphia, is hereby appointed as a member of the Civil Procedural Rules Comm ittee for a term of three years commencing November 1, 2015.
#### CARNER BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, Petitioner, v. EASTERN HOSIERY MILL, INC., and Jack Mizrahi, individually, and Isaac Mizrahi, individually, and Standard Trading & Mfg. Co., Inc., Respondents.

No. 41022.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# C_2023071EN.01003101.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/31

---

Order of the General Court of 8 December 2022 — Euranimi v Commission

(Case T-769/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 71/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2021 L 327, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Steel Association (Eurofer)’s application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Steel Association (Eurofer)’s application to intervene.

| 3. | European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) shall pay the costs.

| 4. | Euranimi, the European Commission and Eurofer shall each bear their own costs relating to Eurofer’s application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Euranimi, the European Commission and Eurofer shall each bear their own costs relating to Eurofer’s application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---
#### Julie C. SNYDER et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Respondent.

No. 72-794.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 17, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
# C_2022237EN.01001602.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — ‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21) v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

(Joined Cases C-160/21 and C-217/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Payments to beneficiaries - Article 75 - Time limit for payment - Compliance - None - Tacit refusal of the application for aid)

(2022/C 237/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21)

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament of the Council of 13 December 2017, must be interpreted as meaning that failure by the paying agency of a Member State to pay, before the end of the time limit set down in that provision, aid applied for by a farmer, should not be regarded as constituting a tacit decision to reject the aid application in question, irrespective of whether the farmer concerned has or has not been informed of any additional checks which would justify such an overrun of that time limit.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
#### Nancy HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, etc., Appellee.

No. 77-1552.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 1978.

Eugene P. Spellman and Denis Dean, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart Simon, County Atty. and Amy N. Dean, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.

Before PEARSON,, HENDRY and HUB-BART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Metropolitan Dade County v. Marusa,*295 So.2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); *Metropolitan Dade County v. Corozzo,*212 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); *McKim v. McNayr,*168 So.2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Van MELINIE.

No. 60557.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Rena M. Price and J. Daniel Rivette, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Brian G. Meissner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2856

___________

Marilyn J. Bryant, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Monfort Pork Plant; Con Agra, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 3, 1997

 Filed: December 10, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marilyn J. Bryant appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment 1

in favor of her former employer in her sex discrimination action. Having reviewed the

record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment

was properly entered. Because an extended opinion would serve no precedential value,

we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7583

RONALD SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK; JAMES B. FRENCH; JEANNIE

LANCASTER; TED C. SMILEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-537-5-2BR)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 7, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Deborrah Lynn Newton, Assistant

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel and

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Beck,

No. CA-00-537-5-2BR (E.D.N.C. July 25, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### EQUITABLE CREDIT AND DISCOUNT COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF GADSDEN COUNTY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. J-411.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Feb. 20, 1968.

Sidney E. Lewis, of Goldman, Presser & Lewis, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Gardner & Lines, Quincy, and W. J. Oven, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

The Motion to Dismiss the appeal on the basis that the appeal is interlocutory, is denied upon the authority of Shannon v. Shannon, 136 So.2d 253 (Fla.App. 1st, 1962).

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### George Willie BUSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-570.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Vaughn J. Rudnick, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jack Lee PRICE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1284.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 18, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

Joint Forces Construction LLC ) ASBCA Nos. 62618, 62619, 62620

)

Under Contract No. W91236-18-C-0020 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: David A. Hearne, Esq. 

 ReavesColey, PLLC

 Chesapeake, VA

James R. Harvey, Esq.

Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq.

 Vandeventer Black LLP

 Norfolk, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

John R. Lockard, Esq.

Mark R. Higgins, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 27, 2021

LAURA EYESTER

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62618, 62619, 62620, Appeals of 

Joint Forces Construction LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 27, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 15, 2020

No. 04-19-00891-CV

WEBB COUNTY,

Appellant

v.

Juan C. Garcia LINO, Individually and as Representative of the Estates of Suleika R. Fonseca 

Saldivar, Deceased, and Alessandra Juliette Garcia, Deceased,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CVA000356D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Because the notice of appeal did not show it was served on each court reporter 

responsible for preparing the reporter’s record, contra TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 51.017(a), on January 13, 2020, we ordered Appellant to file an amended notice of appeal 

certifying proper service on the responsible court reporter(s). Appellant timely complied; our 

January 13, 2020 order is SATISFIED. 

The reporter’s record is due on January 16, 2020.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
#### Jane L. JOHNSON, as Administrator of the Estate of Trady Johnson, Jr., Deceased, Petitioner, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, Respondent.

No. 77-832.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 18, 1977.

Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown and Larry A. Klein, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Marjorie D. Gadarian of Jones, Paine & Foster, P. A., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks review of an interlocutory evidentiary order entered in a case previously cognizable at law. In a trilogy of cases, each authored by Judge Downey, this court has unequivocally held that interlocutory orders in cases previously cognizable at law are reviewable by certiorari only when it clearly appears there is no full, adequate and complete remedy available by appeal after final judgment. The fact that it would be expedient from the standpoint of one or both of the parties to have the propriety of the interlocutory order reviewed by writ of certiorari is not sufficient to warrant granting that writ. *Siegel v. Abramowitz,*309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); *Solitron Devices, Inc. v. Reiland,*311 So.2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); and *Santini Brothers, Inc. v. Grover,*338 So.2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

If this case goes to trial petitioner may prevail even though the disputed evidence is admitted. In that event it would not be necessary for this court to review the decision of the trial court excluding the evidence. On the other hand, if respondent should prevail, petitioner would have a full, adequate and complete remedy available by appeal after final judgment.

CERTIORARI DENIED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 30, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2342

Lower Tribunal No. F01-34236

________________

Daniel Deleon,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Joseph Perkins, Judge.

Daniel Deleon, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
260 La. 694

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Sunday TAYLOR v. Rufus S. HALL, Warden, Louisiana Correctional Institute For Women.

No. 52105.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1972.

In re: Sunday Taylor applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application not considered. Applicant’s remedy has not been exhausted in the lower court, where proceedings are pending.