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

Exhibit B page 1 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 1

of 25
Exhibit B page 2 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 2

of 25
Exhibit B page 3 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 3

of 25
Exhibit B page 4 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 4

of 25
Exhibit B page 5 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 5

of 25

Exhibit B page 7 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 7

of 25
Exhibit B page 8 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 8

of 25
Exhibit B page 9 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 9

of 25
Exhibit B page 10 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 10

of 25
Exhibit B page 11 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 11

of 25
Exhibit B page 12 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 12

of 25

Exhibit B page 14 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 14

of 25
Exhibit B page 15 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 15

of 25
Exhibit B page 16 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 16

of 25
Exhibit B page 17 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 17

of 25
Exhibit B page 18 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 18

of 25
Exhibit B page 19 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 19

of 25
Exhibit B page 20 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 20

of 25
Exhibit B page 21 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 21

of 25
Exhibit B page 22 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 22

of 25
Exhibit B page 23 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 23

of 25
Exhibit B page 24 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 24

of 25
Exhibit B page 25 of 166

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2073-2 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 15:12:07 Page 25

of 25
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-19-00109-CV

Style: Robert Finch II v. Angela Stegman

Date motion filed*: March 7, 2019

Type of motion: Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal

Party filing motion: Appellant Robert Finch II

Document to be filed: Proof of payment for reporter’s record fee

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due dates: February 3, 2019 (Notice of Appeal deadline)

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Dates: 2/18/19 (15-day grace period)

Dates Requested: 2/13/19 (NOA filing date); 3/17/19 (RR fee)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: March 19, 2019.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _ Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal is granted

because his notice of appeal was filed on February 13, 2019, within the 15-day grace

period ending on February 18, 2019, and his motion provides a reasonable explanation

for the 10-day delay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.1(b), 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 

959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997); Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886-87 (Tex. 

2003). Additionally, the Court grants appellant’s extension request to pay the reporter’s 

record fee by March 19, 2019.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_______

 x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___March 19, 2019__
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

January 5, 2024

SC-2023-0792

Ex parte Derrill Richard Ennis. PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Derrill 

Richard Ennis v. State of Alabama) (Lee Circuit Court: CC-18-726; 

Criminal Appeals: CR-2022-0588).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on January 5, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Stewart, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, 

Sellers, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
#### John P. Adams, Appellant, v. Henry A. Morgan, President, etc., Respondent.

— Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Tuolumne-Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee will meet on June 14, 2010, at the City of Sonora Fire Department, in Sonora, California. The purpose of the meeting is to hear presentations made by project proponents requesting RAC funding.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held June 14, 2010, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the City of Sonora Fire Department located at 201 South Shepherd Street, in Sonora, California (CA 95370).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Beth Martinez, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 532-3671, extension 320; e-mail                         *bethmartinez@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Presentation of primarily Forest Service project submittals by project proponents; (2) Public comment on meeting proceedings. This meeting is open to the public.

Dated: May 1, 2010.

Susan Skalski,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2010-12926 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-ED-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1861

JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00254-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, 

III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John M. Dickson, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Dickson v. United 

States, No. 2:13-cv-00254-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. June 10, 2014). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[662 NE2d 255, 638 NYS2d 937]

#### Dawn Kellman, Respondent, v 45 Tiemann Associates, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Argued November 28,1995;

decided December 21, 1995

*872APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*O’Connell & Gimble,*New York City *(Elliot L. Evans*and *Robert Zicklin*of counsel), for appellant.

*Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot,*New York City *(Brian J. Shoot*and *Harry Steinberg*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

An owner of land has a duty under the common law to maintain its premises "in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” *(see, Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233, 241). Contrary to defendant landlord’s contentions, its alleged compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations is not dispositive of the question whether it satisfied its duties under the common law *(see, Lesocovich v 180 Madison Ave. Corp.,*81 NY2d 982).

The Appellate Division correctly concluded that the record presents triable issues of fact, regardless of whether the building is subject to or in compliance with section 53 of the Multiple Dwelling Law or section 27-380 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Specifically, questions are presented (1) whether it was foreseeable that tenants would use the fire escape landings to clean windows or for other purposes, and, if so, (2) whether defendant landlord exercised reasonable care to protect tenants from injuring themselves by falling through the unguarded hatchways in fire escape landings.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Ray C. Schrock, P.C. (pro hac vice) 

(ray.schrock@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com) 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered) 

ORDER PURSUANT TO L.B.R. 9013-1(c) 

AUTHORIZING OVERSIZE BRIEFING FOR 

DEBTORS’ OMNIBUS (I) REPLY IN 

SUPPORT OF THE DEBTORS’ BAR DATE 

MOTION, AND (II) OBJECTION TO THE 

TCC’S BAR DATE MOTION 

[Dkt Nos. 2636, 2638] 

[No Hearing Requested] 

Debtors.

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead 

Case, No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Signed and Filed: June 21, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

June 24, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2718 Filed: 06/21/19 Entered: 06/24/19 07:44:43 Page 1 of

2
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court, having reviewed the Ex Parte Application for Order Authorizing Oversize 

Briefing Pursuant to L.B.R. 9013-1(c) for Omnibus (I) Reply in Support of the Debtors’ Bar Date 

Motion, and (II) Objection to the TCC’s Bar Date Motion (the “Application”), filed on June 19, 

2019; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Application is granted, as provided herein. 

2. The Debtors are authorized to file and serve an Omnibus Bar Date Reply and 

Objection (as defined in the Application), in excess of 15 pages, but not to exceed 30 pages 

(exclusive of any schedules or exhibits thereto and/or any declarations filed in connection 

therewith). 

** END OF ORDER ** 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2718 Filed: 06/21/19 Entered: 06/24/19 07:44:43 Page 2 of

2
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

B- K LIGHTING, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

FRESNO VALVES & CASTINGS, INC., Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 1318

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 06

- CV

- 2825, Judge Margaret M. Morrow.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R
The parties jointly move to dismiss the appeal due to settlement. Case: 13-1318 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2013B

- K LIGHTING , INC

. v. FRESNO VALVES & CASTINGS , INC

. 2

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Da niel E. O’Toole Clerk s25

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 25, 2013 Case: 13-1318 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2013
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60630 Summary Calendar

DAVID AZURDIA-PINEDA, Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A029 947 931
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Azurdia-Pineda (Azurdia), a native and citizen of Guatemala, has filed a petition f

or r eview of a June 13, 2012, denial by the Board o f I mmigration Appeals (BIA) of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Azurdia, who is subject t o a n August 1991 deportation order that was issued after an i n absentia removal hea r i n g , a r gues that the record establishes that he did n ot receive proper notice of his removal hearing. He further argues that the BIA applied the incorrect legal sta n d a r d by requiring that he show e xceptional circumstances U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 17, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60630 Document: 00512276563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2013No. 12-60630

that justified his absence from the hearing, as the law at the time of the removal hearing merely required that he show reasonable cause for failure to attend. The issues that Azurdia presents to this court were adjudicated by the BIA in t wo orders th a t w ere issued i n 2008 in connection with a p rior motion to reopen filed by Azurdia. The issues were not re-examined b y the BIA in the June 13, 2012, decisio n . Azurdia did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s 2008 decisions, and the instant petition for review is not timely filed with respect to those decisions. See 8 U .S.C. § 1252(b ) ( 1 )

. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction over those decisions. See Stone v. INS , 514 U.S. 3 86, 405-06 (1995). Although Azurdia’s petition for review is timely with respect to the B IA’s June 13, 2012, decision, he does not address the BIA’s rationale for denying relief and therefore he has abandoned any s uch challenge. See United States v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 ( 5th Cir. 2010); Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). The petition for review is DENIED.

2 Case: 12-60630 Document: 00512276563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2013
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2170-2    Filed: 05/21/19    Entered: 05/21/19 13:23:26    Page 1of 2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2170-2    Filed: 05/21/19    Entered: 05/21/19 13:23:26    Page 2of 2
Odin O Mena Borja

Luis Diaz

Fernanda Diaz

Lugarda Borja Torres

Zelzin Mena

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Case#19-30088 DM

odin.mena.jr@gmail.com

To whom it may concern,

I am sending this letter as a request for your consideration, for my family and for myself, to file a

late claim through the Bankruptcy Court. We, like many others I know, have our own experience

of the night and the weeks that followed after the Tubbs Fire. I was 16 years old at the time, 2

days away from turning 17. I had fallen asleep with my window open that night. I remember

waking up to the smell of something burning and the sound of almost all of my neighbors blaring

their horns as a warning while they wait in line in their cars to escape our Coffee Park

neighborhood already halfway on fire. Instantly, I ran outside and heard my neighbor yelling

from inside his car to evacuate and advised me how close the fire was to my backyard. I couldn’t

see much in front of me as the smoke was so thick. In the distance I could hear explosions of

what I can assume to be propane tanks. As I ran back home I saw a bright orange light emitting

from behind my house. I looked through my backdoor screen, to find my backyard gate already

on fire. There was no time to think. My mother, stepdad, and my stepdad’s mother, who all

called that house their home, had to be woken up by me as I told them what was going on and

that we needed to leave immediately. At the moment, we had no access to communication with

authorities or emergency services. We all left with essentially nothing but the clothes on our

back. I was able to record the majority of the small amount of time we had to evacuate our

home, although, that night we lost much more than our home. We ended up taking shelter at an

animal hospital in Petaluma, where my mom worked as the cleaning service. None of us slept

that night.

We have been residents of Sonoma County for the majority of our lives and have never had to

experience what we have been through during the 2017 fires and after. Our summers will

forever be changed. Seasons in Sonoma County now include winter, spring, summer, “fire

season” and fall. We will continue to carry our fire anxiety and fear with us every year. This is a

new anxiety that was caused by severe neglect and simple ignorance. PG&E and Company have

been found responsible for the cause of the 2017 Tubbs Fire and my family is a victim of its

outcomes.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Odin O Mena Borja

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13011 Filed: 09/28/22 Entered: 09/28/22 10:54:13 Page 1

of 1
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5050 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Act of May 31, 1918, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5050 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘May 31, 1918 Act Re3 peal Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) 1918 ACT.—The term ‘‘1918 Act’’ means 

7 the Act of May 31, 1918 (40 Stat. 592, chapter 88). 

8 (2) FORT HALL TOWNSITE.—The term ‘‘Fort 

9 Hall Townsite’’ means the land that was taken out 

10 of trust by being set aside or set apart under the 

11 1918 Act on the Fort Hall Reservation, consisting of 

12 approximately 120 acres in the East Half of the 

13 Northeast Quarter in Section 35 and the West Half 

14 of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter in Sec15 tion 36, Township 4 South, Range 34 East, Boise 

16 Meridian, Idaho, based upon a survey completed on 

17 May 19, 1921, and depicted on the document enti18 tled ‘‘Plat of the Townsite of Fort Hall’’ on file with 

19 Bingham County, Idaho and the Tribes. 

20 (3) TRIBES.—The term ‘‘Tribes’’ means the 

21 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reserva22 tion. 

23 SEC. 3. REPEAL. 

24 The 1918 Act is repealed. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5050 RDS 

1 SEC. 4. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Tribes shall have the exclu3 sive right of first refusal to purchase at fair market value 

4 any land— 

5 (1) within the Fort Hall Townsite; and 

6 (2) offered for sale. 

7 (b) ACQUIRED LAND HELD IN TRUST.—The United 

8 States shall hold in trust for the benefit of the Tribes or 

9 a member of the Tribes, as applicable— 

10 (1) any land owned or acquired by the Tribes 

11 or a member of the Tribes within the Fort Hall 

12 Townsite before the date of enactment of this Act; 

13 and 

14 (2) any land owned or acquired by the Tribes 

15 or a member of the Tribes within the Fort Hall 

16 Townsite on or after the date of enactment of this 

17 Act. 

18 SEC. 5. EFFECT. 

19 Nothing in this Act affects any valid right to any land 

20 set aside or set apart under the 1918 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-12-00119-CV

JULIO PEREZ, JR., Appellant

V.

EDWIN R. SEWELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12C1410-102

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Julio Perez, Jr., has filed a motion to dismiss his pending appeal in this matter 

pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). The motion is signed by the appellant, who is representing himself.

We grant the appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: April 16, 2013

Date Decided: April 17, 2013
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2563 Filed: 06/17/19 Entered: 06/17/19 15:00:19 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2563 Filed: 06/17/19 Entered: 06/17/19 15:00:19 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2563 Filed: 06/17/19 Entered: 06/17/19 15:00:19 Page 3 of

3
#### Fritze Freudenthal, Appellant, v. Eliza Davis, Respondent.

Order affirmed.

Opinion by

Brady, J.