alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

VICTORIA ALICIA MARTINEZ, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1206

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed February 2, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Ashley B. Moody, 

Judge, and Lawrence M. Lefler, Acting 

Circuit Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

DAVID EDWARD RICKER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 588 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is: 

Whether the Pennsylvania Superior Court wrongly held, in a published 

opinion of first impression, that a defendant does not have a state or 

federal constitutional right to confront the witness against him at a 

preliminary hearing and that a prima facie case may be proven by the 

Commonwealth through hearsay evidence alone, which is what the trial 

and magisterial district courts concluded in Petitioner’s case? 

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"DC-8 Coloring Page","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Isr6qTcgDj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/dc-8-coloring-page\/\">DC-8 Coloring Page<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/dc-8-coloring-page\/embed\/#?secret=Isr6qTcgDj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“DC-8 Coloring Page” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Isr6qTcgDj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/edu_srch_dc8_coloring_page.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":463}
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and 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, as amended, and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| May 8, 2009 | /s/Richard A. Smith                       |   |
|-------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|        | Richard A. Smith                          |
|        | Chief Executive Officer of FelCor Lodging |
|        | Trust Incorporated, as general partner of |
|        | FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership        |
|             |                                           |        |  |
9674.

#### Booker, administrator, *v.*Heard & Sutton.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Complaint; from Wilkes superior court—Judge Walker. March 2, 1918.

*I. T. Irvin Jr.,*for plaintiff in error. *C. F. Sutton,*contra.

Luke, J.

The testimony admitted over objection was not material and necessary to the plaintiff's cause, and was harmless to the cause of the defendant. The evidence authorized the verdict against the defendant, which has the approval of the trial judge, and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Jenkins, J., ebneur.*
423 A.2d 1313

#### Commonwealth v. McCready, Appellant.

Argued June 19,1979.

Norris E. Gelman, for appellant; Sheldon Finklestein, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*645Before HESTER, HOFFMAN and CATANIA, JJ.*

*

 President Judge Francis J. Catania of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
##### 



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 Metalico, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on his
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 represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods covered in the Report. May 16, 2005 /s/     Eric W. FinlaysonEric W. FinlaysonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Metalico, Inc. and will be retained by Metalico, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LKQ CORPORATION, and KEYSTONE 

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, GM 

GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, 

LLC, and GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02753

The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DECLARATION OF CONRAD A. GOSEN

I, Conrad A. Gosen, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Fish & Richardson P.C., counsel of record in 

this action for Defendants General Motors Company and GM Global Technology Operations, 

LLC, as well as General Motors LLC (collectively, “GM”). I am a member of the Bar of the 

State of Minnesota and have been admitted pro hac vice in this case. I have personal knowledge 

of the matters stated in this declaration and would testify truthfully to them if called upon to do 

so.

2. I submit this declaration in support of Defendants’ Response to LKQ’s Motion for 

Sanctions. (ECF No. 202).

3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of correspondence sent to LKQ’s 

counsel dated December 30, 2021. 

4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of correspondence sent to LKQ’s 

counsel dated October 8, 2021.

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 230 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:4878
2

5. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of testimony from the deposition 

of Angela Caligiuri on December 20, 2021.

6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of correspondence sent to LKQ’s 

counsel dated November 2, 2021.

Dated: February 7, 2022 /s/ Conrad A. Gosen

Conrad A. Gosen

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 230 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:4879
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served via CM/ECF on 

February 7, 2022 upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Conrad A. Gosen

Conrad A. Gosen

gosen@fr.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 230 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:4880
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Mystery Picture Graphing Activities","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"JtYrbZYnna\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/mystery-picture-graphing-activities\/\">Mystery Picture Graphing Activities<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/mystery-picture-graphing-activities\/embed\/#?secret=JtYrbZYnna\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Mystery Picture Graphing Activities” — NASA\" data-secret=\"JtYrbZYnna\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/super_guppy_acd16-0002-009_orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":343}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heidi Lavelle","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heidi-m-lavellenasa-gov\/","title":"Mars Ep. 10: Suit Up for Mars","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DOccO4dXvr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/houston-we-have-a-podcast\/mars-ep-10-suit-up-for-mars\/\">Mars Ep. 10: Suit Up for Mars<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/houston-we-have-a-podcast\/mars-ep-10-suit-up-for-mars\/embed\/#?secret=DOccO4dXvr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Mars Ep. 10: Suit Up for Mars” — NASA\" data-secret=\"DOccO4dXvr\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/suit_up_for_mars_-_resize_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
January 23, 2015 

No. 01-14-00355-CR

In the Court of Appeals for the

First District of Texas, at Houston 



Cause No. 1360915 

In the District Court for the 

182nd District Court, Harris County, Texas 



CURCY ANDREW RIDEAU 

Appellant 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee 



STATE’S WAIVER OF OPPORTUNITY TO

RESPOND TO APPELLANT’S ANDERS BRIEF



TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

 Comes now the State of Texas, by the undersigned assistant district attorney, and 

respectfully waives the opportunity to file a brief in response to the Anders brief filed by the 

appellant’s counsel. The State would respectfully show the Court the following:

I.

 In keeping with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 

1396 (1967), appointed counsel for the appellant has filed a brief containing the conclusion 

that this appeal is frivolous. The appellant has been notified of his right to review the 

appellate record and to file a pro se brief. 

II.

A review of the appellant’s brief reveals no question of constitutional dimension or 

other issue requiring review in the interest of justice. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00355-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/23/2015 3:44:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/23/2015 3:44:05 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
January 23, 2015

III.

A copy of this instrument will be served on counsel for the appellant through 

eFile.txcourts.gov, on the date of the filing of this instrument with the clerk of this court.

THEREFORE, the State of Texas waives the opportunity to file a response to the 

Anders brief filed by the appellant’s attorney, and moves the Court to affirm the trial court’s 

judgment. 

DEVON ANDERSON

District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

/s/ Alan Curry

ALAN CURRY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

TBC No. 05263700

curry_alan@dao.hctx.net
#### Hoover *v.*Hanna.

The Circuit Court cannot take cognizance of a matter of controversy or suit, unless the same be brought before it by process of law or other legal proceedings.

ERROR to the *Wayne*Circuit Court. This suit wascommenced by the appearance of *Hoover*and Hanna, in the Circuit Court, and their filing an agreement entered into by them, relative to certain facts connected with their respective claims to the office of clerk of the Circuit Court in *Wayne*county. The agreement concludes with praying the Court to determine which of the parties was entitled to the office. The Circuit Court, thereupon, gave judgment in favour of *Hanna.*

O. *H. Smith*and *M. M.*Ray, for the plaintiff.

*J.*Rariden, for the defendant.

Stevens, J.

The opinion of the Circuit Court in this case must be reversed; the Circuit Court having no jurisdiction, as a judicial Court, of any matter of controversy or suit, unless it be brought before the Court by regular process of law, or other regular legal proceedings known to the law. *Dewhurst*v. *Coulthard,*3 Dall. 409. This case was not so brought before the Court.

*Per Curiam.*

Thejudgment is reversed. - To be certified, &c.
ILND 450 (Rev. 04/29/2016) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

Defendant(s). 

Case No.

Judge 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s) 

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ 

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

 does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s) 

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other: 

This action was (check one): 

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge on a motion 

Date: Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

 , Deputy Clerk 

Case: 1:20-cv-02374 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:78
Honorable Wallace Shropshire 

County Attorney 

Travis County Courthouse 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. C-251 

Re: System of wagering known 

Dear Mr. Shropshire: as "Calcutta Pool" 

By letter dated April 10, 1964, you requested an opinion as 

to whether the lottery statute is violated by a scheme of 

wagering known as a Calcutta Pool. In your letter, you point 

out that this Calcutta Pool is normally operated in conjunction with golf tournaments, tennis matches, skeet and trap 

shooting tournaments and matched horse races. On the day of 

the event In question an organizer will proceed to auction 

off to the highest bidder the respective participants in the 

event taking place. The high bidder pays the amount of his 

bid to the organizer who holds the pot, or the Calcutta. The 

individual who has been the high bidder of the participant 

who wins the sporting event wins the pot or pool. These Calcutta Pools normally have no relation or sponsorship of the 

individual or promoter of the sporting event itself; although 

in instances, for the privilege of conducting a Calcutta Pool, 

the individual or promoter of the event will receive a percentage of the Calcutta Pool. In many instances the money in 

the pool will be distributed between those being the high bidder on the participants in the events, placing first, second 

and third in the event. 

Article 654 of Vernon's Penal Code provides: 

"If any person shall establish a lottery 

or dispose of any estate, real or personal, by 

lottery, he shall be fined not less than one 

hundred nor more than one thousand dollars; or 

if any person shall sell, offer for sale or 

keep for sale any ticket or part ticket in any 

lottery, he shall be fined nor less than ten nor 

more than fifty dollars." 

It is our opinion that this scheme is violative of Article 

654 of Vernon's Penal Code in that the same constitutes a 

lottery. A lottery is defined in Featherstone v. Independent 

-1215- 
Honorable Wallace Shropshire, Page 2 (Opinion No. C-251) 

Service Station Asso., 10 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Clv.App. 1928) as a 

scheme for distribution of prizes, by lot or chance, where one 

on paying money or giving other things of value to another obtains some token that entitles hlm to receive a larger or smaller value or nothing, as some formula or chance may determine. 

As long as some consideration is actually paid for the right 

to participate in the scheme, it matters not to whom the consideration flows. Featherstone v. Independent Service Station 

Asso., supra. In the fact situation under discussion, there 

could be no doubt of a valuable consideration. 

SUMMARY 

A system of wagering known as a "Calcutta 

Pool" violates Article 654 of Vernon's Penal 

Code. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

Assistant Attorney General 

CBS/is 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Norman V. Suarez 

Bill Allen 

Jerry Brock 

Lloyd Martin 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Stanton Stone 

-1216-
NUMBER 13-14-00336-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DAVID ALVAREZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, David Alvarez, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss 

his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed 

the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our 
2

mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

26th day of June, 2014.