DENIED and Opinion Filed August 19, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00902-CV IN RE KRISTOPHER GENE GUILLAUME, ALAN E. DEVOE, AND SYLVIA J. GUILLAUME, Relators Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-00774-B MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III In their July 31, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relators contend the judgment in the underlying case is void for various reasons.

Upon review, relators’ petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy, No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.3(a), 52.3(d), 52.3(e), 52.3(g), 52.3(h), 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2). For example, the person filing the petition failed to certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record, as required by rule 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that our precedent requires “exceptionally strict compliance” with rule 52.3(j)). Additionally, the documents included in the appendix and record are not properly certified or sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Leonard, No. 05-23-00546-CV, 2023 WL 3944376, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining how to obtain properly certified or sworn copies).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

/Bill Pedersen, III/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 240902F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–