One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-One and No/100 Dollars ($1,631.00) in U.S....

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00294-CV

ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED APPELLANT THIRTY-ONE AND NO/100

DOLLARS ($1,631.00) IN U.S.

CURRENCY; ONE (1) AUDIOVOX

CELL PHONE, MODEL CDM-

8610VM, SERIAL NUMBER

43110888; ONE (1) SAMSUNG

CELL PHONE, MODEL SGH-E715,

SERIAL NUMBER R5VX468004V;

ONE (1) MAN YELLOW METAL

WATCH WITH NUMEROUS CLEAR

STONES; TWENTY-SIX

THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED

FIFTY-SIX AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($26,456.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY;

1998 WHITE LEXUS GS400

BEARING TEXAS LICENSE PLATE

Z60-DFV, VIN

JT8BH68X5W0013145; FOUR (4)

ZEON AUTOMOBILE TIRES WITH

CHROME WHEELS; ONE (1)

PANASONIC PLASMA TV, MODEL

TH-42PD25, SERIAL NUMBER

YJ4531455 WITH REMOTE; ONE (1) SAMSUNG DVD PLAYER,

MODEL DYD-P241A/XAA, SERIAL

NUMBER 69WX600260P WITH

REMOTE; ONE (1) TOSHIBA VCR,

MODEL M-645, SERIAL NUMBER

41566345; ONE (1) HARMON

KARDON DVD PLAYER, MODEL DVD22, SERIAL NUMBER WA0007-

17176 WITH REMOTE; ONE (1)

HARMON KARDON AMP MODEL

AVR-130, SERIAL NUMBER AN006-

22989 WITH REMOTE; ONE (1)

SONY HANDY CAM, MODEL DCR-

TRV19, SERIAL NUMBER 344852;

ONE (1) SHARP COLOR TV,

MODEL 25J-M100, SERIAL

NUMBER 917710; TEN THOUSAND

AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10,000.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY;

ONE (1) ONKY SIX-DISC PLAYER,

MODEL DV-CP702, SERIAL

NUMBER 5461731553; ONE (1)

ONKY RECEIVER, MODEL HT-

R520, SERIAL NUMBER

B451020338; ONE (1) ONKY

SUBWOOFER, MODEL SKM520,

SERIAL NUMBER 5472773350;

FIVE (5) ONKY SPEAKERS (TWO (2) WITH MODEL NUMBER SKM-

520, SERIAL NUMBER 5472770;

TWO (2) WITH MODEL NUMBER

SKF-520F, SERIAL NUMBER

5472773350; AND ONE (1) WITH

MODEL NUMBER SKC-520C,

SERIAL NUMBER 5472773350);

AND ONE (1) ESA FLAT PLASMA

TV, MODEL PDP4294IV, SERIAL

NUMBER 390B3CFXA00112J[1]

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION2 ----------

On January 11, 2012, we notified Appellant Raul Ramirez that his brief did not comply with rules 6.3, 9.4(h), and 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,3 nor did it comply with subsections A and E of this court’s local appellate rule 1.4 We allowed Appellant until January 23, 2012 to file an amended brief that complied with the above rules. We stated in our letter to Appellant that his failure to timely file an amended brief in compliance with the above rules could result in the waiver of noncomplying points, our striking his brief, or the dismissal of his appeal.5 We received Appellant’s amended brief on January 26, 2012, but it too was noncompliant.

Accordingly, on January 30, 2012, we notified Appellant that his amended brief did not comply with rules 6.3, 9.4(h), and 38.1(d), (g), (i), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,6 nor did it comply with subsection E of this court’s local appellate rule 1.7 We allowed Appellant until March 1, 2012 to file a second amended brief that complied with the above rules. We stated in our letter to Appellant that his failure to timely file a second amended brief in compliance with the above rules could result in the waiver of noncomplying points, our striking his brief, or the dismissal of his appeal.8 On March 5, 2012, this court received Appellant’s second amended brief. It remains noncompliant.9 Accordingly, we strike Appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.10

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 3, 2012