Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 8, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00164-CV

____________

LARRY PICKARD, Appellant

V.

GOLDBERG B=NAI B=RITH TOWERS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 831,671

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 8, 2006.  The clerk=s record was filed on March 31, 2006.  No reporter=s record was taken.  Appellant=s brief was originally due on June 21, 2006.  Three extensions were granted until October 2, 2006. 

On October 2, 2006, appellant tendered a brief that did not comply with Tex. R. App. P. 9.3 and 9.4.  The brief was returned and appellant was directed to file a corrected brief on October 12, 2006.  On October 17, 2006, appellant tendered another brief.  On October 26, 2006, the court issued an order, advising appellant that the brief was not in compliance with Rule 38 in that it failed to include a table of contents, a list of issues presented, and a statement of facts supported by record references.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(b), (e), (f).  Additionally, the brief failed to provide a clear and concise argument for each contention made with appropriate citations to the record and to authority.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (h).  Appellant=s brief also failed to comply with Rule 9.4 in that it did not include durable front and back covers.  Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(f).  The court ordered appellant to file an amended brief in compliance with the rules on or before November 9, 2006.  Appellant was granted one extension until December 11, 2006.  On January 25, 2007, the court denied appellant=s next motion for extension and issued an order threatening dismissal if the amended brief was not filed by February 8, 2007.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

On February 8, 2007, appellant filed a AMotion to Restrain Foreclosure of Cause,@ complaining that his word processor was not working and requested an unspecified amount of time to file the amended brief.  As of this date, no brief has been filed. 

The court has been generous in granting extensions of time to file the brief.  Approximately nine months have elapsed since appellant=s brief was originally due to be filed.  Appellant=s February 8, 2007, motion does not reasonably explain the delay in filing a brief.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 8, 2007.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.