1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state court —after its
plenary jurisdiction has expired —to use a nunc pro tunc order to
retroactively convert a dismissal for want of prosecution into a dismissal
"with prejudice, "a substantive judicial change that Texas law forbids after
jurisdiction ends.

2. Whether attorney abandonment —established through disciplinary
proceedings and occurring without withdrawal or notice —constitutes
"cause " that cannot be attributed to the litigant under this Court 's precedent,
including Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012).

3. Whether due process permits a dispositive hearing to proceed during
attorney abandonment, where counsel actively prevented the litigant from
communicating with the court (App. 28) and no transcript exists to permit
appellate review.

4. Whether due process and meaningful appellate review are denied when
a dispositive hearing proceeds with ho court reporter because local policy
requires litigants to privately hire and pay for one, resulting in the
complete absence of a record for appeal.

5. Whether executing an eviction judgment while a related appeal is
pending violates the Fourteenth Amendment 's guarantees of due process
and access to the courts.

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state court to retroactively convert a dismissal through a nunc pro tunc order after its plenary jurisdiction has expired