UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 99-50936 _____________________ LANSDALE AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; JAY ALAN LANSDALE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus WILLIAMSON COUNTY; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; ED RICHARDS, in his official capacity and individually; JOHN CHANDLER, in his official capacity and individually; MARIO OROZCO, in his official capacity and individually; JOHN C.

DOERFLER, in his official capacity and individually, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (A-99-CV-499-JN) _________________________________________________________________ June 26, 2000 Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Having heard oral argument, and based, in addition, upon our review of the record and the briefs, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction at issue. Of course, in so holding, we do not express an opinion on the merits of this action, including the underlying * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. statutory issues.

The order denying preliminary injunctive relief, however, also contains a sentence stating that Appellants’ application for a permanent injunction is denied as “moot”. In the light of the absence of any explanation for that statement, or any indication in the record that the parties or district court intended that resolution of the merits of the requested permanent injunction be decided at, or based upon, the preliminary injunction hearing, we are convinced that the district court did not intend to rule on the merits of such permanent relief. Accordingly, we regard that statement as inadvertent or unintended, having no effect on our jurisdiction to review the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

See United States v. Bayshore Associates, Inc., 934 F.2d 1391, 1395 (6th Cir. 1991) (treating order appealed as preliminary injunction where district court “inartfully” characterized order as permanent injunction).

AFFIRMED