alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-222-CV

ROY E. ADDICKS, JR.	APPELLANT

	V.

MICHAEL R. LITTLE	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

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

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Roy E. Addicks, Jr., a pro se, indigent inmate, appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice2 under sections 14.003 and 14.004 of the civil practice and remedies code.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.003–.004 (Vernon 2002).  In his mandamus petition, he sought to have the trial court compel appellee, a small claims court judge in Wichita County, to rule on various motions filed by appellant in appellee’s court.  Appellant does not dispute that he failed to follow the requirements of section 14.004 in filing his petition for writ of mandamus3; instead, in two issues, he contends that chapter 14 does not apply to the mandamus petition he filed because an original proceeding is not a civil suit as contemplated by that chapter.  However, this court has held that “an original proceeding is a suit for purposes of chapter 14” and, thus, that a pro se, indigent inmate filing an original proceeding must abide by the requirements of that chapter.  See Garrett v. Williams, 250 S.W.3d 154, 158 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).  Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s two issues and affirm the trial court’s order.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  April 1, 2010
In the Matter of J.L.H.

No. COA15-431.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
_________________________________________ 

 

________________________________ 

 

________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 136975 & (61) Justices 

136976 

In Re Peter Martin Wege Trust 

SUSAN WEGE CARTER,

 Petitioner-Appellee, 

 SC: 136975-6 

vs CoA: 274256, 274850 

 Kent Probate: 02-173246-TT 

FIFTH THIRD BANK,

 Respondent-Appellant. 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by the attorneys for the 

parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered and, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and without costs. 

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. 

September 11, 2008 

 Clerk
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 December 2007 – Ireland and Others v
Commission**

**(Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06)**

State aid – Directive 92/81/EEC – Excise duty on mineral oils – Mineral oils used as fuel for the production of alumina – Exemption granted by the French, Irish and Italian authorities – New aid – Existing aid – Duty to state reasons – Finding of the Court of its own motion

State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Decision concerning an exemption from excise duty authorised by the Council on a proposal from the Commission in accordance
with Directive 92/81 – No examination of possible classification as existing aid – Lack of reasoning (Arts 88(1) and (2) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(b)(v); Council Directive 92/81,
Art. 8(4)) (see paras 52-64)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTIONS for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 on the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region, the Shannon region and Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Joins Cases T‐50/06, T‐56/06, T‐60/06, T‐62/06 and T-69/06 for the purposes of the judgment; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Annuls Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case T‐62/06; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicants, including the costs of the interim proceedings in Case T‐69/06 R. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLODATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
                       
                     
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         335,912
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,396,905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,874,089
<PP&E>                                         1,160,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                 335,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,716,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,789,432
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,134,440
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     469,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,716,475
<SALES>                                        208,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,857
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,241,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,461)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             151,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,174,205)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,174,205)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,261,413)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.45)
        


</TABLE>
ESTATE OF HAWKINS v. WISEMAN.

No. COA07-1149.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (07CVD1819).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded with instructions.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6875

STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; T. R. CARROLL; CHRIS BATTEN; OFFICER

STEWART; SERGEANT DIGGS; LIEUTENANT CRUMPLER; CAPTAIN THOMPSON;

DAVID MITCHELL; SUSAN BELL; JOHN DOE, Mailroom; JANE DOE,

Mailroom; JOHN GARLAND; VICTORIA SELLERS; KEVIN B. BENFIELD;

EDWARD K. OSTEEN; JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer; DAVID STAMEY;

STEPHEN E. DUNN; JOHNNY W. TAYLOR, III; CARLA O’KONEK-SMITH;

HATTIE B. PIMPONG; THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; SERGEANT HERRING;

LIEUTENANT VINSON; LIEUTENANT WEBSTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:07-ct-03152-H)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Tompkins filed this action in the Eastern District of North

Carolina. After the district court issued the orders that are the

subject of this appeal, the case was transferred to the Western

District of North Carolina where it is still pending.

2

PER CURIAM:

Stuart Wayne Tompkins seeks to appeal the district

court’s* March 17, 2008, order denying relief on some but not all

of the claims raised in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and

the court’s June 4, 2008, order denying several motions filed by

Tompkins. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

orders Tompkins seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor

appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Tompkins’ motion for

appointment of counsel is denied. 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
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 72 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide improved 

reimbursement for clinical social worker services under the medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

improved reimbursement for clinical social worker services under the medicare program. 

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 ‘‘Equity for Clinical So5 cial Workers Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPROVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLINICAL SO7 CIAL WORKER SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the 

9 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 72 IS

1 amended to read as follows: ‘‘(ii) the amount determined 

2 by a fee schedule established by the Secretary,’’. 

3 (b) DEFINITION OF CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER

4 SERVICES EXPANDED.—Section 1861(hh)(2) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘services performed by a clinical social worker (as 

7 defined in paragraph (1))’’ and inserting ‘‘such services 

8 and such services and supplies furnished as an incident 

9 to such services performed by a clinical social worker (as 

10 defined in paragraph (1))’’. 

11 (c) CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES NOT TO

12 BE INCLUDED IN INPATIENT HOSPITAL SERVICES.—Sec13 tion 1861(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

14 1395x(b)(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘and services’’ and 

15 inserting ‘‘clinical social worker services, and services’’. 

16 (d) TREATMENT OF SERVICES FURNISHED IN INPA17 TIENT SETTING.—Section 1832(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Social 

18 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is amend19 ed— 

20 (1) by striking ‘‘and services’’ and inserting 

21 ‘‘clinical social worker services, and services’’; and 

22 (2) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

•S 72 IS

1 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to payments made for clinical so3 cial worker services furnished on or after January 1, 2008. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
STATE v. HARRIS.

No. COA08-200.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (06CRS25593).

Case reported without published opinion. New Trial.
# C_2009282EN.01003802.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2009 — FAB v Commission

(Case T-8/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Digital terrestrial television - Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Action for annulment - Meaning of State aid - State resources - Compensation for discharging public service obligations - Aid intended to promote culture - Legitimate expectations)

2009/C 282/71

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Böken, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Gross, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Deutscher Kabelverband eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Struckmann, C Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86 of 8.4.2006.

1

---
# C_2008022EN.01005501.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/55

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-40/06) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Request for information on personal effects dispatched from the place of employment to the place of residence - No need to adjudicate - Application for damages manifestly unfounded)

(2008/C 22/105)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant:Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: V. Messa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's request for a copy of the consignment note relating to the dispatch of his personal effects from Angola to Italy and, second, an application for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment;

| 2. | The claims for compensation are rejected as manifestly unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The claims for compensation are rejected as manifestly unfounded;

| 3. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and all the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and all the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006, p. 37.

1

---
# C_2009044EN.01001901.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-488/07) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions - Deductible proportion - Calculation - Methods laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) - Obligation to apply the rounding up rule in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1))

(2009/C 44/31)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Applicant:

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — Interpretation of Articles 17(5) and 19(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Rules on rounding up

Operative part of the judgment

Member States are not obliged to apply the rounding up rule in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment where the proportion of input tax deductible is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods in (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         735,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,591,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  9,646,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,810,000
<PP&E>                                       4,864,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,643,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,030,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    40,408,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (31,068,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,643,000
<SALES>                                     22,852,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,852,000
<CGS>                                       12,147,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,147,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (167,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,136,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,291,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,365,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,365,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN
Television Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Gary R. Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, William A.
Cunningham, Vice President and Controller, Deborah R. Jacobson, Vice President
of Corporate Development and Treasurer, and Peter E. Maloney, Vice President of
Finance, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.


      Dated: August 9, 2004              /s/ Gary R. Chapman
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Gary R. Chapman
                                         Chief Executive Officer


      Dated: August 9, 2004              /s/ William A. Cunningham
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         William A. Cunningham
                                         Vice President and Controller


      Dated: August 9, 2004              /s/ Deborah R. Jacobson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Deborah R. Jacobson
                                         Vice President of Corporate Development
                                         and Treasurer


      Dated: August 9, 2004              /s/ Peter E. Maloney
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Peter E. Maloney
                                         Vice President of Finance
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          99,856
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,787,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                   531,476
<INVENTORY>                                 14,005,343
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,745,066
<PP&E>                                      12,779,308
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,164,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,721,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,511,049
<BONDS>                                     24,751,337
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,848
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,224,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,721,275
<SALES>                                     35,912,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,912,349
<CGS>                                       29,038,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,038,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,662,692
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               260,383
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,019,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (57,495)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,495)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (249,951)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>