the lost, destroyed, or inaudible portion of the reporter’s record, or the lost or destroyed exhibit, is necessary to the appeal’s resolution; and (4) if the parties cannot agree on a complete reporter’s record. Tex.R.App. P. 34.6(f) (Vernon Special Pamph.2002) (emphasis supplied); Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554, 570-71 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Issac v. State, 989 S.W.2d 754, 756-57 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (en banc). We find that Avi has not complied with the fourth requirement, showing that the parties could not agree on a complete reporter’s record. See Tex.R.App. P. 34.6(f)(4). This failure on his part is dis-positive of this issue. We can find no reference in any document submitted by Avi that he has fulfilled this requirement. See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). More importantly, Avi fails to direct us to
holding that if a reasonable fact finder could make a particular finding on the administrative record then the finding is supported by substantial evidence holding that a new trial could not be ordered until there was a finding the parties could not agree on complete reporters record holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal