                                       In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             _____________________

                               NO. 09-12-00412-CV
                             _____________________


              IN RE COMMITMENT OF RICHARD HAUBOIS

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                      Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 07-09-08953 CV
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an appeal from an order entered in a sexually-violent-predator proceeding,

we are asked to address whether we possess appellate jurisdiction over an order

changing the entity that approves where Richard Haubois is required to reside. We

conclude that the trial court’s order is not appealable, and we also conclude that

mandamus relief on the issues Haubois raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

      Recently, in In re Commitment of Holt and In re Commitment of Cortez, we

addressed the same issues Haubois raises in his brief, and we concluded that we

                                           1
did not have appellate jurisdiction over these same issues. In re Commitment of

Holt, No. 09-12-00406-CV, 2013 WL ______, at *__ (Tex. App.—Beaumont July

11, 2013, no pet. h.); In re Commitment of Cortez, No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL

3270613, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). We also

considered whether Holt and Cortez raised issues entitling them to mandamus

relief. See Holt, 2013 WL _______, at *__; Cortez, 2013 WL 3270613, at **2-6.

      For the same reasons stated in Holt and Cortez, we conclude that we lack

appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order dated July 26, 2012, and that

Haubois has not demonstrated that he should receive mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we dismiss Haubois’s appeal.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.




                                              ___________________________
                                                     HOLLIS HORTON
                                                          Justice

Submitted on July 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.




                                          2
