stead the orders were made available to the

mother’s counsel for five days after being pre- pared by the State; the mother failed to cite to any legal authority in her brief on the issue, and nothing was provided to the court that justified reversing the trial court on the issue. DH v. Wyo. Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re "H" Children), 2003 WY 155, 79 P.3d 997, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 185 (Wyo. 2003), reh’g denied, 2004 Wyo. LEXIS 2 (Wyo. Jan. 13, 2004). Jurisdiction. — District court retained ju- risdiction over an award of costs to a motorist in a suit arising out of a collision with a cyclist, and the cyclist, who appealed, failed to file a separate notice of appeal pertaining to his challenge to the award of costs; therefore, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear this issue on appeal. Nish v. Schaefer, 2006 WY 85, 138 P.3d 1134, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 89 (Wyo. 2006). Contents of order. — Although the district court erroneously stated what the presumptive child support would have been had the district court chosen to adhere to the presumptive support tables, that error was de minimus and harmless, where such information was not me- morialized in the order from which the instant appeal was taken. Shelhamer v. Shelhamer, 2006 WY 83, 138 P.3d 665, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 93 (Wyo. 2006). Law reviews. — See article, “The 1994 Amendments to the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure,” XXX Land & Water L. Rev. 151 (1995). For comment, “Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say,” see XXXI Land & Water L. Rev. 591 (1996).