DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 9, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00954-CV ANTONIUS ANU BEY, Appellant V. BRIAN MOYNIHAN AND BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-06967 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein Before the Court is appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal. In the motion, appellees ask the Court to dismiss the appeal because, despite being given the opportunity to cure the briefing deficiencies identified in the Court’s December 29, 2023 letter, appellant’s corrected brief still fails to satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. We agree with appellees, grant their motion, and dismiss this appeal.

After appellant filed his brief, we sent him a letter explaining that, for numerous reasons, it did not meet the requirements of rule 38.1 of the rules of appellate procedure. In that letter, we provided appellant with a detailed explanation of why the document he provided to the Court failed to comply with rule 38.1. We informed appellant that if he did not file a brief that complied with rule 38.1 within ten days, his appeal was subject to dismissal. While appellant did file another brief, it, like the first, was inadequate to serve as a brief under the requirements of rule 38.1. In particular, among other things, appellant’s amended brief fails to include a concise statement of the case supported by record references, a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the brief, a statement of facts supported by record references, or an argument for the legal contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.

The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in a case and to present argument that will enable the Court to decide the case. See id. 38.9. Even liberally construing appellant’s brief, we conclude it does not do so. Appellant does not identify specific facts or causes of action against appellees, nor does he explain how the trial court erred by dismissing the case. Rather, he relies on a myriad of irrelevant legal doctrines and principles to assert “sovereign citizen” claims that are not applicable in this Court. Appellant’s brief is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.1.

See id. 38.1; Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s January 4, 2024 amended brief, grant appellees’ motion to dismiss on that ground, –2– and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b)(c). We deny appellees’ request for sanctions under rule of appellate procedure 45 for filing a frivolous appeal. See id. 45.

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE 230954F.P05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ANTONIUS ANU BEY, Appellant On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-23-00954-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-06967.

Opinion delivered by Justice BRIAN MOYNIHAN AND BANK Goldstein. Justices Molberg and OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., Pedersen, III participating.

Appellees In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered April 9, 2024

–4–