preparation of the reporter’s record in 2015 when she filed the notice of appeal. It contains what appears to be a new written request filed by Serrano on August 22, 2016. To the extent Serrano’s failure to make a timely written request and designation of the record delayed Dittmar’s preparation of the record, it will be considered in our analysis of the second element. Serrano maintains that the record has been lost without any fault on her part. It is undisputed that Dittmar is physically unable to work on the record, and Looney has informed the Court that she is unable to prepare the record from the stenographic notes. Given the absence of an audio recording of the hearing, we conclude that the reporter’s record is lost. See Johnson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex.Crim.App.2004)(<HOLDING>). The only remaining issue is whether the
holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 holding that as a general rule pleadings filed in this court are public records and are not subject to being sealed holding that since the reasons given by the district court in this case are wellfounded in the record and are in keeping with the purposes of the copyright act the court acted within its discretion in awarding a reasonable attorneys fee holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding that court reporters notes are lost for purposes of rule 346 when the missing portions of record are irretrievable