alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION,
INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      265,225
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,161
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          28,831
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        11,486
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 307,703
<COMMON>                                        10,967
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       96,142
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              4,553
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 111,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,630
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           121,150
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               7,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   5,400
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  55,361
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  307,703
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      195,786
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             6,263
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     169,847
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     169,847
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         25,939
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 467
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  20,143
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         9,516
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,627
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        510
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   10,117
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        10,465
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              46
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ULYSSES RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 69 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 136 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 136

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2019

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect unpaid interns in the 
 Federal Government from workplace harassment and discrimination, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Intern Protection Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2302 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) All protections afforded to an employee under 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of subsection (b)(1) shall be afforded, 
in the same manner and to the same extent, to an intern and an 
applicant for internship.
    ``(2) For purposes of the application of this subsection, a 
reference to an employee shall be considered a reference to an intern 
in--
            ``(A) section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
        U.S.C. 2000e-16);
            ``(B) sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in 
        Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 633a); and
            ``(C) section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
        U.S.C. 791).
    ``(3) In this subsection, the term `intern' means an individual who 
performs uncompensated voluntary service in an agency to earn credit 
awarded by an educational institution or to learn a trade or 
occupation.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3111(c)(1) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting ``section 2302(g) (relating to 
prohibited personnel practices),'' before ``chapter 81''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 15, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JULY 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         752,493
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  804,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         455,892
<DEPRECIATION>                                 413,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,406,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      4,877,254
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,723,765
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,151,498)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,406,774
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,916,355
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,532,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             810,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (615,884)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (615,884)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 349,017
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (266,867)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)
        

</TABLE>
ACCEPTED

01-15-00102-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/20/2015 11:29:37 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
# ATTACHMENT 1: IECC 2015 Compliant Packages for Manufactured Homes

City NameIECC climate

regionHUD Code

ZoneWall Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Ceiling Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Floor Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Window Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Door Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Uo-value

Miami 1A 1 0.088 0.051 0.078 0.500 0.500 0.093 Houston 2A 1 0.088 0.049 0.078 0.400 0.400 0.088 Phoenix 2B 2 0.088 0.049 0.078 0.400 0.400 0.088 Memphis 3A 2 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067 ElPaso 3B 2 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067 San Francisco3C 2 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067 Baltimore 4A 3 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067 Albuquerque 4B 2 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067 Salem 4C 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062 Chicago 5A 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062 Boise 5B 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062 Burlington 6A 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062 Helena 6B 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062 Duluth 7 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062 Fairbanks 8 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062

City NameIECC climate

regionHUD Code

ZoneWall Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Ceiling Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Floor Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Window Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Door Ufactor DescriptionCost ($/sf)Uo-value

Miami 1A 1 0.088 0.047 0.078 0.500 0.500 0.091 Houston 2A 1 0.088 0.043 0.078 0.400 0.400 0.084 Phoenix 2B 2 0.088 0.043 0.078 0.400 0.400 0.084 Memphis 3A 2 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065 ElPaso 3B 2 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065 San Francisco3C 2 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065 Baltimore 4A 3 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065 Albuquerque 4B 2 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065 Salem 4C 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059 Chicago 5A 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059 Boise 5B 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059 Burlington 6A 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059 Helena 6B 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059 Duluth 7 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059 Fairbanks 8 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059



### SBRA will complete the description and cost colums and provide this information back to the manufacturer for review and verification. 

# Single section home

Multi-section home
Is there any possibility that Agricultural (NOT industrial) hemp by definition can be reclassified as a Specialty Crop instead of a Fiber Crop.?  Hemp was a Fiber Crop back in the 1940’s but as it is reinvented in today’s agriculture economy it is a different crop it is so much more than Fiber.  Reclassification as a Specialty Crop will qualify hemp research under the current Specialty Crop Block Grant Program administered through the USDA and allow a quick kick start on necessary Agricultural Research.

Tony BrannonMurray State University
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE I

DIGNITY

DIGNITY

Article 5

Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

1.   No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

2.   No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

3.   Trafficking in human beings is prohibited.

---
*** STRUCTURE DIAGRAM S OF THE PMN SUBSTANCE ***



### Sanitized
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                             Amendment to Memorandum
                           OEM Manufacturing Agreement


         The Memorandum OEM Manufacturing Agreement ("MOEMMA") with an effective
date of January 9, 2002 by and among EchoStar Satellite Corporation, EchoStar
Technologies Corporation and Thomson multimedia, Inc. is hereby amended as
follows:

         1.       The 6th sentence of Section 2.4 is amended to read:

         In the event that for any reason an agreement for [CONFIDENTIAL
         INFORMATION REDACTED] has not been executed by Licensee, ETC and ESC on
         [CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REDACTED], then notwithstanding anything else
         in this MOEMMA to the contrary, this MOEMMA shall terminate.

         2.       The MOEMMA shall remain in all other respects unchanged.


Echostar Satellite Corporation      Echostar Technologies Corporation

By:                                 By:
         -------------------------          ---------------------------
Title:                              Title:
         -------------------------          ---------------------------
Date:                               Date:
         -------------------------          ---------------------------

Thomson multimedia Inc.

By:
         -------------------------
Title:
         -------------------------
Date:
         -------------------------
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00199-CR

Jeffery Wayne Jones

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1039752D)

October 17, 2013

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2264 GARY RICHARD WAUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-332) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Richard Waugh, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Henson Kinney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gary R. Waugh appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint made under the Federal Torts Claim Act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Waugh that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Waugh failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); seealso , Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Waugh has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Colon, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant pled guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). The court imposed "a four-month definite sentence” and "probation for a period of up to five years”. The sentence is made concurrent by operation of law *(see,*Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [d]; *People v Piwowar,*101 AD2d 686). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00066-CV

MAXWELL A. ANGWENYI APPELLANT

V.

CACH, LLC APPELLEE

------------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2012-005463-2

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

On March 06, 2015, and March 24, 2015, we notified appellant in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $195 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the $195 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 16, 2013,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 23, 2015

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13-9127 (Aug. 16, 2013) (listing fees in courts of 

appeals).
#### Kam Yue Man et al., Respondents, v Anna Mantione, Also Known as Anna Mantiore, et al., Appellants.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated January 16, 1990, which denied their motion to dismiss the action and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the defendants to accept the untimely service of the complaint.

*711Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, the plaintiffs’ cross motion is denied, and the action is dismissed.

It is well settled that for a plaintiff to avoid dismissal of the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, a reasonable excuse for the delay and the meritorious nature of the claim must be demonstrated *(Marion v Notre Dame Academy High School,*133 AD2d 614; *Benson v Rana Mgt.,*131 AD2d 798). The plaintiffs herein did not proffer a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve the complaint despite the written stipulation extending the time within which the complaint was to be served. Further, since the complaint was not verified by the plaintiffs, it did not constitute an affidavit of merit *(see, Oversby v Linde Div.,*121 AD2d 373; *cf.,*CPLR 105 [t]) and the plaintiffs otherwise failed to establish the meritorious nature of their action. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion should have been granted, the plaintiffs’ cross motion should have been denied, and the action should have been dismissed *(see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells,*64 NY2d 904). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
r

ih

~r\ ^Ac FILED IN

-LIU \ tfL court of criminal appeals

(iLiltX Cf CAmtlkuA^cUD APR 17 2015

J\\Jfen«J \-\&Lfc5 Abel Acosta, Clerk

T7f& 5TA-TL £>FTixkf>

•>*---,<—>n« ^tIFKIOUIEilVIEIIJ UU^ll

COURT OFCRMNAL APPEALS

APR 17 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

TElAL. ltA^5L flJa Ffo-flMOI-L

"TO 77fe tiOiJomUL JICD&& Of 7#L CJ)tt/LtOf(M>p£AL5: LJ)filts Mi &lm Hither P?mr; PzriTiaJhL /kJh ftL£6 nti5 Mav/aD

fOLJUO ^c^^kiD of ^nrrtLLp) ~b/W5 )nJ Mt&l ~rb fiab Ar FkTrr/e^

PbL DlfrfLfexvoOMV fetf2iL). _UJ suPPoesr of xrtfo /Tlor/oD, AtPt'iiAfir

lofSi
Exhibit
No. 23(b)





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333−126966 on Form S−3 of our reports dated February 28, 2008, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule
of Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
(PEC) (which report on the consolidated financial statements expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the
adoption of new accounting principles in 2007 and 2006), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10−K of PEC for the year ended December 31,
2007.





/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP





Raleigh,
North Carolina


February
28, 2008
# C_2016203EN.01002001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/20

---

Article 37

Each Member State shall provide the Commission with such general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form will make it possible to determine whether the implementation of such plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

The Commission shall deliver its opinion within six months, after consulting the group of experts referred to in Article 31.

---
ACCEPTED

03-15-00068-CR

4902952

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/15/2015 3:16:41 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

KARL STAHMANN 

Appellant 

Cause No. -----

IN THE THRID COURT OF APPEALS 

v. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

03 -15-00068-CR 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

APPELLANT'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW APPELLANT, KARL STAHMANN, by and through his 

undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1 0.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, requests an extension of time to file appellant's brief. In support of this 

motion, Appellant submits the following: 

I. 

The deadline for filing Appellant's Brief is March 30, 2015. T.R.A.P. 4.1(a). 

II. 

Appellant requests an extension of sixty (60) days in which to file his Appellant's 

Brief. T.R.A.P. 68.2(c). 

Page 1 of3 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/15/2015 3:16:41 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
III. 

Undersigned counsel was actively preparing for a jury trial, namely: The State of 

Texas v. Xavier Harper (CR-14-0270). Counsel was in a jury trial on March 8-13, 2015 

in The State of Texas v. Audrina Torres (C-1-CR-14-211696). Undersigned counsel was 

also actively in a Motion to Suppress Hearing on three separate occasions for The State of 

Texas v. Christi Lane (D-1-DC-13-205887, D-1-DC-13-302070 and D-1-DC-14-300739). 

PRAYER 

Wherefore, premises considered, undersigned counsel prays for this Court to 

extend the time for filing Appellant's brief as sixty days from April 15, 2015, which 

would make the brief due on Friday, June 12, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted, 

CHARLES F. BAIRD 

SBN #00000065 

BAIRD FARRELLY, PLLC 

2312 Western Trails Blvd, Suite 102-A 

Austin, Texas 78745 

Tel: 512-804-5911 

Fax: 512-804-5919 

Email: jcfbaird@gmail.com 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

Page 2 of3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Motion was provided to the 

Comal County District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney on April 15, 2015, 

via fax at (830) 608-2008. 

CHARLES F. BAIRD 

Page 3 of3