Appellant Kathy Welch filed a letter brief on January 18, 2017. However, the brief is materially deficient because:

(1) the brief does not identify any issues or points presented for review; these must be based

on errors allegedly committed by the trial court, entitling Welch to reversal. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 38.1(f);

(2) the brief does not contain any citations to the record in support of the facts asserted. See

id. R. 38.1(d), (g), (i); and (3) the brief does not contain any citations to or discussion of any authority in support of the

arguments made. See 38.1 38.1(i).

Appellant is advised that as a pro se litigant, she must comply with all applicable procedural rules, and is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney. Paselk v. Rabun , 293 S.W.3d 600, 611 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. denied); Sweed v. City of El Paso , 346 S.W.3d 679, 680 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, pet. denied). A pro se litigant is required to properly present her case on appeal. Sweed , 346 S.W.3d at 680.

We order Welch to file an amended brief that corrects these deficiencies by February 8, 2017 . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.9. If the amended brief does not comply with this order and correct the deficiencies listed above, we “may strike the brief, prohibit [appellant] from filing another, *2 and proceed as if [appellant] had failed to file a brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss appeal if appellant fails to timely file brief).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court