Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 10, 2015

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00382-CV RICARDO MERCADO CARBAJAL, Appellant V. ACCC GENERAL AGENCY INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-09809 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright On June 29, 2015 Appellant, a pro se litigant, filed a deficient brief that was in violation of the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. This Court sent appellant a letter on July 09, 2015, informing him that his brief was deficient. We instructed appellant to file, within thirty days, an amended brief correcting the noted deficiencies. We cautioned appellant that failure to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within the time specified may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. After granting appellant an extension of time, he filed an amended brief on August 25, 2015. The amended brief, however, failed to correct any of the previously noted deficiencies.

Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as licensed attorneys. See Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677-78 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied). On appeal, as at trial, the pro se litigant must properly present his case. Id. A reviewing court must have proper briefing in order to discharge its responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes of the appeal one way or the other. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

We have given appellant an opportunity to correct his brief. Appellant’s amended brief is one paragraph in length. He states he is appealing a default judgment. He asks for an opportunity to defend himself at a fair trial. Appellant’s amended brief is wholly deficient in that it lacks, among other things, the required statement of issues presented for review, a statement of facts supported by record references, and a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (f) (g) & (i). Because appellant failed to provide this Court with proper briefing, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3 (b), (c).

150382F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/____________________ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RICARDO MERCADO CARBAJAL, On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Appellant Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-09809.

No. 05-15-00382-CV V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright.

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart ACCC GENERAL AGENCY INC., participating.

Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee ACCC GENERAL AGENCY INC. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant RICARDO MERCADO CARBAJAL.

Judgment entered September 10, 2015.

–3–