PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. T EX . A . 42.3(c).

Appellant, Carrie M. Leo, filed a pro se notice of appeal on August 12, 2021. On August 16, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to contain the information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. . P. 9.5 (service); see also C IV P RAC & R EM C ODE NN . § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). The notice warned that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before September 15, the appeal would be referred to the Court for dismissal. On September 13, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal, but the notice still fails to comply with Section 51.017(a).

*2 Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Section 51.017(a), the appeal is P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered September 15, 2021.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

*3 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 CARRIE M. LEO, Appellant MICHELLE SMITH, D/B/A MINI-S EXOTIC ZOO, L.L.P.,

Appellee Appeal from the 402nd District Court of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2019-673) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, and the same is, hereby ; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

[1] Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P. , No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

[2] We also note that Appellant has not filed the required docketing statement. 32.1.