## NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00 703 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ DIANE GLORIA SILVA , Appellant,

v. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS T RUSTEE FOR CITIGROUP MORTGAGE L OAN TRUST INC. 2016 - NCI ASSET - BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFI CATE SERIES , Appellee.

____________________________________________________________ On appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa The appellant's brief in the above cause was originally due on April 19, 2017 . On October 20, 2017 , the Court granted appellant ’s sixth request for an extension of time to2 file the brief and ordered appellant to file the brief on or before November 13, 2017

. Appellant was advised that no further extensions would be granted. On November 14, 2017 , appellant filed a motion for leave to file the brief and a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P . 38.1. Appellant was instructed to file an amended brief. On December 4, 2017, the Court received an amended brief . T he Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the amended brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 (b), (c), (d), (g), (i), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally T EX . R.
A PP . P. 38.1. The brief does not contain a table of contents with references to the pages of the brief as required by Rule 38.1(b); does not conta in an index of authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited as required by Rule 38.1(c); the statement of the case is not supported by record references as required by Rule 38.1(d); the statement of facts is not supported by record references as required by Rule 38.1(g); does not contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to the authorities and to the record; and does not contain an appendix as requir ed by Rule 38.1(k). Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if the Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under3 which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 181, 184

- 85 (Tex. 1978). If a party files a brief that does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that party files an amended brief that likewise does not comply with the rules, “ the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and pro ceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. ” T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. According ly, we strike appellant ’s non - conforming brief and order the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b)(c). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice
D elivered and filed the 18th day of January, 2018.