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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6831 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6831

 To reauthorize the Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, 
          and Development Act of 2019, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

   Ms. Salazar (for herself, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Gimenez, Mr. 
Waltz, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, and 
 Mr. McCaul) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, 
          and Development Act of 2019, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``VERDAD Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SANCTIONS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO VENEZUELA.

    (a) Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act.--Section 165(c)(6) of 
the Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act (22 U.S.C. 9753(c)(6)) is 
amended by striking ``the date that is 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``December 31, 2025''.
    (b) Venezuelan Arms Restriction Act.--Section 166(e) of the 
Venezuelan Arms Restriction Act (22 U.S.C. 9754(e)) is amended by 
striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following new paragraph:
            ``(1) December 31, 2025; or''.
    (c) Verdad Act of 2019.--Section 183(b) of the Venezuela Emergency 
Relief, Democracy Assistance, and Development Act of 2019 (22 U.S.C. 
9763) is amended by striking ``2023'' and inserting ``2025''.
    (d) Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 
2014.--Section 5(e) of the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil 
Society Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-278; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is 
amended by striking ``2023'' and inserting ``2025''.
                                 <all>
```
# Uradni list C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-1045
  doi:10.3000/19771045.CA2014.019.slv |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 19A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 5722. januar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1045

doi:10.3000/19771045.CA2014.019.slv

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 19A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 5722. januar 2014

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Objave |
| | UPRAVNI POSTOPKI |
| | Evropska agencija za zdravila |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Obvestilo o preklicu | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

V   Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropska agencija za zdravila

2014/C 019A/01

Obvestilo o preklicu

1

PREGLED NATEČAJEV UL C A

Spodaj je naveden seznam UL C A, objavljenih v tekočem letu.

Če ni drugače navedeno, so bili UL objavljeni v vseh jezikovnih različicah.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

V Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropska agencija za zdravila

| 22.1.2014 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 19/1

---

Obvestilo o preklicu

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Evropska agencija za zdravila se je odločila preklicati naslednja izbirna postopka:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: Pogodbeno osebje (za krajši čas), Oddelek za znanstveno podporo evropskemu uradnemu nadzoru rabe veterinarskih protimikrobnih zdravil (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: Pogodbeno osebje (za krajši čas), Oddelek za znanstveno podporo evropskemu uradnemu nadzoru rabe veterinarskih protimikrobnih zdravil (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1),

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: Pogodbeno osebje (za krajši čas), Znanstveni sekretariat za pripravo mnenj o protimikrobni odpornosti za Evropsko komisijo, Oddelek za zdravila za uporabo v veterinarski medicini (FG IV) (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: Pogodbeno osebje (za krajši čas), Znanstveni sekretariat za pripravo mnenj o protimikrobni odpornosti za Evropsko komisijo, Oddelek za zdravila za uporabo v veterinarski medicini (FG IV) (2).

---

(1)  UL C 320 A, 6.11.2013, str. 2.

(2)  Glej opombo 1.

---
#### Willie PENNIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt STANDFORD; Lt Drummond; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6259

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Willie Pennix, Appellant Pro Se. Ankush Nayar, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Pennix appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his .42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Pennix v. Standford,*No. 1:16-cv-01643-RDB, 2017 WL 639225 (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2017). We dispense with oral ar*690gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS AT AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          31,471
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,503
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,311
<PP&E>                                         101,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,293
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,479
<SALES>                                        339,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               339,877
<CGS>                                          286,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  286,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,118)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   620
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,165
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,913
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,913
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.75
        

</TABLE>
Order entered April 3 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00325
- CV STEPHANIE GAINES, Appellant

V. GATEWOOD APTS., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . CC
- 13
- 00654
- B



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated January 21, 2014, we informed appellant that the Court Reporter notified us the reporter’s record had not been filed because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification she had requested the record and had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record, or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the requi red documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the reporter’srecord. Therefore, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Appellant’s

brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ CAROLY N WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6811** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WINDELL NORWOOD HICKS, a/k/a Fly Hicks , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 7:09

- cr - 00009

- FL

- 1; 7:12

- cv - 00116

- FL )

Submitted : November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Windell Norwood Hicks , Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Michael Gordon James , Shailika K. Kotiya , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Windell Norwood Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge a nd denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrati ng that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court de nies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independe ntly reviewed the record and conclude that Hicks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately present ed in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PACIFIC
COAST APPAREL COMPANY, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                        (14,113)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    350,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               441,349
<PP&E>                                          74,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 552,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          695,280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,453,798
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   552,163
<SALES>                                      3,385,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        1,925,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,650,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,836)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (179,306)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (180,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (180,106)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Peter F. BRONSON; Sherri L. Bronson, husband and wife, Debtors, Peter F. Bronson; Sherri L. Bronson, Debtors-Appellants, v. Dale D. Ulrich, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 14-16420

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*720Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017.

Peter F. Bronson, Pro Se

Sherri L. Bronson, Pro Se

Terry A. Dake, Terry A. Dake, Ltd, Phoenix, AZ, for Trustee-Appellee

• Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Peter F. Bronson and Sherri L. Bronson appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing as moot their appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving the final distribution of the bankruptcy estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal is moot. *Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.),*152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Bronsons’ appeal as moot because the Bronsons failed to request a stay of the bankruptcy court’s order and the bank-ruptcy estate has been fully administered. *See Trone v. Roberts Farms, Inc. (In re Roberts Farms, Inc.),*652 F.2d 793, 798 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Appellants have failed and neglected diligently to pursue their available remedies to obtain a stay of the objectionable orders of the Bankruptcy Court and have permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur as to render it inequitable for this court to consider the merits of the appeal.”).

Because the Bronsons’ appeal is moot, we do not consider their contentions addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.

We reject as meritless the Bronsons’ contentions of judicial bias.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the Company) for the period ending January 2, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dawn G. Lepore, President,
Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations
of the Company.



/s/ Dawn G. LeporeDawn G. LeporePresident, Chief Executive Officer, and
Chairman of the Board


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

March 18, 2011
#### Stephen H. Olin, as Committee of the Person and Estate of Benjamin Page, a Lunatic, Resp’t, *v.*The Metropolitan El. R. Co. *et al.,*App’lts.

Appeal from judgment entered upon the decision of a judge at special term.

Per Curiam.

The judgment must he affirmed, with costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

ARTHUR J. SMITH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2167 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 73 DB 2015

Attorney Registration No. 19964

(Allegheny County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3 rd day of October , 2018, upon consideration of the

Recommendation of the Three

- Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint

Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is granted, and Arthur J. Smith is

suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of five years,

retroactive to July 5, 2015. He shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

Respondent shall pay th e costs incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the

investigation and prosecution of this matter.
#### James WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK, Officer, Metropolitan Police; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17243

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

OCTOBER 5, 2017

James Williams, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Nicholas Crosby, Marquis & Aurbach, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendantr-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM *

James Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have' -jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), *Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,*833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Williams’s action because Williams failed to comply with court orders, including filing a pre-trial order, *556despite being ordered twice to do so. *See id.*at 130-32 (discussing the five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Williams’s action for failure to comply with court orders, we do not consider Williams’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. *See Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, geperally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 986 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 of CytoGenix,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 1O-Q for the period  ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Randy  Moseley,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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(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 result of operations of the Company.


September 19, 2008



/s/Randy Moseley
-----------------
Randy Moseley
Prinicpal Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6504 

To prohibit actions to carry out the Department of Commerce’s pause in 

the issuance of new export licenses for certain exports under the Commerce Control List. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. POSEY, Mr. 

GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. 

ALFORD, and Mr. DUNN of Florida) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit actions to carry out the Department of Commerce’s pause in the issuance of new export licenses 

for certain exports under the Commerce Control List. 

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 ‘‘Protect American Gun 

5 Exporters Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6504 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ACTIONS TO CARRY OUT THE DE2 PARTMENT OF COMMERCE’S PAUSE IN THE 

3 ISSUANCE OF NEW EXPORT LICENSES FOR 

4 CERTAIN EXPORTS UNDER THE COMMERCE 

5 CONTROL LIST. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective beginning on the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce— 

8 (1) may not take any action to carry out the 

9 Department of Commerce’s assessment or any policy 

10 changes resulting from the assessment announced on 

11 October 27, 2023, relating to the Department’s 

12 pause in the issuance of new export licenses for ex13 ports of all items controlled under Export Control 

14 Classification Numbers 0A501, 0A502, 0A504, and 

15 0A505 of the Commerce Control List; and 

16 (2) may not take any substantially similar ac17 tion to pause or otherwise suspend or prohibit the 

18 issuance of new export licenses for exports of any or 

19 all items described in paragraph (1). 

20 (b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary of Commerce may 

21 take an action described in paragraph (1) or (2) of sub22 section (a) only if— 

23 (1) the action is subject to and meets the re24 quirements of— 

25 (A) section 553 of title 5, United States 

26 Code; and 

3 

•HR 6504 IH

1 (B) chapter 8 of title 5, commonly known 

2 as the ‘‘Congressional Review Act’’); and 

3 (2) before taking the action, the Secretary con4 ducts a regulatory impact analysis of the action. 

Æ
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 23

- 00251

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No

. 2022

- 005575

- 2

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ

. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### K ENNETH 

### M AGNUSON



### , Appellant

V



### .

M ATTRESS 

### F IRM



### , I NC



### . , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered A ppellant ’ s “N o tice of Dismissal.” We grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43. 2( f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : December 7, 2023