circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . See Fed. R. App, P. 28. 2 . The argument section of Plaintiffs’ brief correctly states that this Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. The summary of the argument section of Plaintiffs' brief contains a partial statement of this Court’s standard of review for improper statements by counsel during summation. Plaintiffs’ brief does not contain this Court’s standard of review for erroneous admission of evidence, denial of a motion for JNOV, or denial of a motion for a new trial. 3 . United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); accord Davison v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 712 F.3d 884, 885 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Owens v. Sec’y of Army, 354 Fed.Appx. 156, 158 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 988 F.2d 573,
holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding that dismissal is warranted where the noncompliance is not merely technical or stylistic but rather is so fundamental that it prevents the court from engaging in meaningful review holding that the relevant question is not whether risk is involved or assumed but rather whether that or something else to which it is related in the particular plan is its principal object and purpose holding that it is not holding that it is well settled that dismissal is warranted where  a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings