alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BATTLE RIDGE COMPANIES v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

No. 643P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 2004.

Joseph E. Herin, Assistant Attorney General, for NC Dept. of Transportation.

Harry Bivens, Charlotte, for Battle Ridge Company.

Prior report: 161 N.CApp. 156, 587 S.E.2d 426.

***ORDER* Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 19th day of February 2004 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Swain County:**

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of February 2004."
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A., Petitioner v. Brian EDWARDS, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court, et al.

No. 18-1441

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kentucky denied.
#### CLARK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 222, Docket 22590.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 6, 1953.

Decided June 18, 1953.

Pepper & Siegel, New York City, Morton Pepper, New York City, of counsel, for petitioner.

H. Brian Plolland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack and Alonzo W. Watson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The taxpayer claims that he is entitled under Section 117(d) (2) and (e) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 117 (d) (2), (e) (1), to carry over to the year 1945 a loss resulting from a nonbusiness bad debt that became worthless in the year 1943, Internal Revenue Code, § 23 (k) (4), 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(k) (4). In 1937 he advanced $15,000 to his wife to purchase the voting trust certificate of the entire outstanding capital stock of The Nation, Inc. The taxpayer assisted his wife because of her desire that The Nation — a weekly magazine- — continue to be published in accordance with its past policy and that her salaried position be protected. No written instrument evidenced the transaction; the money was to be repaid — without interest— only if and when the taxpayer’s wife received sufficient dividends from The -Nation. In 1943 The Nation, Inc. was liquidated following the sale of all of its assets for $1 and the assumption of its liabilities.

The Tax Court stated in its opinion, 18 T.C. 780, “we do not have the arm’s length dealings that may normally give rise to a debtor-creditor relationship.” Despite the taxpayer’s earnest assertions to the contrary, it is evident from this that the court *354found as a fact that no debt had been created. This interpretation is reinforced by the subsequent part of the opinion in which as an alternate ground for denying the taxpayer’s claim the case is discussed under the assumption that an obligation had existed, the court holding that it would not be a debt within the meaning of § 23(k) of the Internal Revenue Code since there was to be no repayment except upon the happening of a contingency. Compare Alexander & Baldwin, Ltd. v. Kanne, 9 Cir., 190 F.2d 153 with Island Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 4 Cir., 57 F.2d 992. The finding that there was no debtor-creditor relationship is supported by the evidence, and we do not think that it can be regarded as “ciearly erroneous.” Cf. Estate of Van Anda v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 1158, affirmed, 2 Cir., 192 F.2d 391. Consequently there is no need to pass on the alternative ground relied upon by the Tax Court.

Decision affirmed.
Order entered March 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01186-CR

KEITH ALLEN FOSTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-80380-2014

ORDER

Appellant’s March 19, 2015 second motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is 

GRANTED. The time to file appellant’s brief is EXTENDED to April 20, 2015.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000873637
<NAME> Global Government Bond Portfolio
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>001
   <NAME>Smith Barney World Funds, Inc.

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Oct-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                      Oct-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>             125,175,010
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>            113,148,160
<RECEIVABLES>                       2,936,843
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     16,364,950
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    132,449,953
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                    0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          17,433,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                17,433,238
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                             0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>          119,264,934
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               4,354,224
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               4,324,908
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>          12,412,168
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                      0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>            (3,785,188)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                    0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>          (12,875,199)
<NET-ASSETS>                      115,016,715
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                           0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   6,678,451
<OTHER-INCOME>                              0
<EXPENSES-NET>                      1,328,925
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>             5,349,526
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>           12,177,109
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>         (10,350,125)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>               7,176,510
<EQUALIZATION>                              0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>           3,926,058
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                    0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                       0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>               370,344
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>           362,484
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                    21,456
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>            (12,439,938)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>             3,140,784
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>          (2,328,771)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                     0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                  0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                 902,878
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                     1,328,925
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>               47,749,536
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  11.030
<PER-SHARE-NII>                         0.510
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0.180
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0.890
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0.000
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0.000
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                    10.950
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                          0.85



</TABLE>
Sheldon Lamont JACKSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-8941

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Kenan IVERY, Petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 18-9146

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Summit County denied.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 26, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41094 Summary Calendar

CHON PATRICK DIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:02-CV-206

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Chon Patrick Dimas, Texas prisoner # 851077, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas relief. Dimas claims that his federal rights were violated 1) because the state trial court admitted evidence of his commission of an extraneous burglary and 2) because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that he was guilty of murder.No. 05-41094 -2- We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and hold that Dimas failed to meet his burden of establishing that the state court’s adjudication of his claims resulted in a decision that was contrary to federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Story v. Collins , 920 F.2d 1247, 1254 (5th Cir. 1991); Aguilar v. Dretke , 428 F.3d 526, 534 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2565

HAILESELASSIE BEYENE TESSFAY, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-495-764) Submitted: August 24, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Haileselassie Beyene Tessfay, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We review a denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS , 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Tessfay’s motion. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (2005). We accordingly deny the petition for review. We also deny Tessfay’s motion to remand. 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.

PETITION DENIED
May 4,1998

VIA EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza 
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:	Greenwich Street Series Fund (the "Fund")
	File Nos. 33-40603 and 811-6310

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as 
amended, please accept this letter as certification that the 
prospectus and the statement of additional information for the 
above-referenced Fund does not differ from that contained in Post-
Effective Amendment No. 14 (the "Amendment") to the Fund's 
Registration Statement on Form N-1A. This Amendment was filed 
electronically on April 24, 1998 and went effective April 30, 1998.


	Any questions regarding this filing should be directed to 
the undersigned at (212) 816-5770. 

	Please return an electronic transmittal upon your receipt of 
this filing.

Sincerely yours,



/s/Michael Kocur
Michael Kocur
Assistant Secretary
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

Veritas Vincit, LLC and William Berry 

Dean, III, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

Fred Alan Brown, Charles William 

Durham, II, Reticulum Management, LLC, 

and Birnam Wood Capital, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 

4:24-cv-00079-JRG 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

Notice is hereby given that Chistopher T. Bovenkamp enters his appearance as counsel for 

Plaintiffs Veritas Vincit, LLC and William Berry Dean, III in the above-referenced proceeding for 

the purpose of receiving notices from the Court. Mr. Bovenkamp is currently admitted to practice 

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Mr. Bovenkamp’s contact 

information is as follows: 

Christopher T. Bovenkamp 

Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC 

3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

Telephone: (469) 587-7252 

Telecopier: (214) 764-8392 

Texas State Bar No. 24006877 

cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com 

Case 4:24-cv-00079-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 109
2 

Dated: April 18, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/Christopher T. Bovenkamp 

BRETT CHARHON

 Texas State Bar No. 24040674 

 bcharhon@ccrglaw.com 

STEVEN CALLAHAN

Texas State Bar No. 24053122 

 scallahan@ccrglaw.com 

CHRISTOPHER T. BOVENKAMP

Texas State Bar No. 24006877 

 cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com 

CHARHON CALLAHAN 

ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC

3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

Telephone: (214) 521-6400 

Telecopier: (214) 764-8392 

JOHN P. LEWIS,JR.

 Texas State Bar No. 12294400 

 jplewis@haywardfirm.com 

HAYWARD PLLC 

10501 N. Central Expressway, Suite 106 

Dallas, Texas 75231 

Telephone: (972) 755-7106 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Veritas Vincit, LLC 

and William Berry Dean, III 

Case 4:24-cv-00079-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 110
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) on April 18, 2024. As such, this document was served on all counsel 

who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). 

 s/Christopher T. Bovenkamp 

 CHRISTOPHER T. BOVENKAMP

Case 4:24-cv-00079-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 111
Aleisha O. GRAY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6297

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
## United States Court of Appeals

**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 24

- 1923

___________________________

Karen D. Littrell

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

Martin O ’ Malley, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Defendant

- Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri

- St. Louis

____________

Submitted: Octobe r 1, 2024

Filed: October 4, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Karen Littrell appeals the district court ’s order affirming the partial denial of

supplemental security income benefits, after her hearing before an Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ). After careful review, we conclude that remand is required for

further consideration of Littrell ’ s subjective complaints, particularly her reports of

back and knee pain. See Ross v. O’ Malley

, 92 F.4th 775, 778 (8th Cir. 2024) (de-2- novo review of district court ’s judgment; Commissioner ’ s decision will be affirmed

if it is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole and ALJ made no legal

error). The ALJ discounted Littrell ’ s pain complaints without providing sufficient

rationale, as he cited only the lack of objective medical evidence in discounting her

physical complaints generally, and did not address her reports of back and knee pain.

See Halverson v. Astrue

, 600 F.3d 922, 931

- 32 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ may not discount

claimant ’ s subjective complaints solely because they are unsupported by objective

medical evidence, although such absence of evidence is factor to be considered);

Guilliams v. Barnhart , 393 F.3d 798, 802 (8th Cir. 2005) (in rejecting claimant ’ s

complaints of pain as not credible, court expects ALJ to detail reasons for discrediting

testimony and set forth inconsistencies found).

Because the ALJ ’s evaluation of Littrell ’s pain complaints was insufficient, the

ALJ ’ s subsequent determination of her residual functional capacity (RFC) and the

related hypothetical question he posed to the vocational expert (VE) were similarly

infirm. See Swope v. Barnhart

, 436 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 2006) (where there was

no indication in ALJ ’s opinion that he disbelieved evidence of claimant ’s impairment,

it was error not to include impairment in hypothetical question to VE); Cunningham

v. Apfel

, 222 F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir. 2000) (reversing in part because ALJ failed to

credit or properly consider evidence of physical impairment that was supported by

medical records). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court, and we

remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for further evaluation of

Littrell ’ s pain complaints.

STRAS, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I would have affirmed the judgment.

______________________________
Gregory GREER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9444

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *Rehaif* v. *United States* , 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019).
CITY OF BOISE, IDAHO, Petitioner v. Robert MARTIN, et al.

No. 19-247

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000797480
<NAME> SMITH BARNEY SECTOR SERIES
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>005
   <NAME>SMITH BARNEY GLOBAL BIOTECHNOLOGY FUND

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              2 Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 OCT-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                      OCT-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>             40,640,436
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>            35,999,917
<RECEIVABLES>                        475,175
<ASSETS-OTHER>                             0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                     960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    36,476,052
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>             398,478
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                    0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                  0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                  398,478
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                            0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>          40,667,354
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                859,230
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                      0
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                  0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>               (75,412)
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                2,095
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                   0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>          (4,640,521)
<NET-ASSETS>                      35,953,516
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                          0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                     42,740
<OTHER-INCOME>                             0
<EXPENSES-NET>                       118,152
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>              (75,412)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>               2,095
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>         (4,640,521)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>             (4,713,838)
<EQUALIZATION>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                  0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                   0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                      0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>           41,165,480
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>         (498,126)
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                        0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>            35,953,516
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                    0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                  0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                    0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                 0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                 53,492
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                      206,348
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>               8,037,180
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  11.40
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (0.01)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0.00
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0.00
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0.00
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     9.88
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                         1.50
[AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING]                     0
[AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE]                       0



</TABLE>
Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Applicants v. MAZARS USA, LLP, et al.

No. 19A545

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

The application for stay of the mandate presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case No. 19-5142, is stayed pending the fling and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such petition is filed on or before December 5, 2019, by noon. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the judgment of this Court. If no petition for a writ of certiorari is filed on or before December 5, 2019, by noon, the stay shall terminate.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-63,980-11

EX P ARTE RAUL VILLEGAS GA RZ A, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W9232-8 IN THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HOOD COUNTY

Per curiam .

O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indece ncy with a child by contac t and sentenc ed to twenty year s’ imprisonment. In his prese nt application, Applicant raises three grounds. This application, howeve r, prese nts a more serious question. This Court’s rec ords re flec t that Applicant has filed se ven prior applications perta ining to this conviction. It is obvious from the rec ord that Applicant continues to raise issues that have been prese nted and reje cted in previous applications or that should have been2

prese nted in previous applications. The writ of habea s corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. Sanders v. U.S. , 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex p a r t e Carr , 511 S.W .2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Be cause of his repe titive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claim s ar e barr ed from revie w under Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandone d by his abuse of the writ. This appli ca tion is dismiss ed. There fore , we instruct the Clerk of the C ourt of C rimi n al Ap p ea ls not to acc ept or file t he instant application for a writ of habea s corpus, or any future application perta ining to this conviction unless Applicant is able to sh ow in such an application that any claims prese nted have not been raised previously and that they could not have been prese nted in a previous application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Bilton , 602 S.W .2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: April 10, 2019 Do not publish