Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s pro se response was originally due July 22, 2015. We granted an extension of time to file appellant’s pro se response until November 4, 2015. When we granted this extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional *2 circumstances. On September 1, 2015, this court ordered the trial court clerk to provide appellant with a copy of the record in these appeals. The trial court clerk complied with this court’s order. On September 17, 2015, appellant filed a pro se motion seeking (1) an expansion of the permitted word length; (2) an extension of time to January 4, 2016 to file his pro se response; (3) additional items allegedly from his trial that were not part of the record; and (4) orders from this court to retest DNA evidence. We deny appellant’s requests and issue the following order.

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a pro se response with the clerk of this court on or before December 2, 2015 . If appellant does not timely file the pro se response by that date, the court will consider appellant’s appeals on the record and the brief filed by counsel.

PER CURIAM