alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J ARNA I L S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72956 A ge nc yN o. A 029- 462- 617 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jarnai l S i ng h, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ o rd erd ism issin g h is ap p ea l fro m an im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s ( “I J ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n d e p o rta tio n p r o c e e d in g s c o n du c te din 

# FI LED DE C 28 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS/ Res ea r ch 07- 72956 2 ab s e n tia . R e v ie w in g f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , U

r b i n a - O s e

j o v . I NS , 124 F . 3d 1314, 1 3 1 6 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) , we d e n yi n p artan dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he agency di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng S i ng h’ s m ot i on t o reopen be c aus e S i ngh f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e “ r e a s onabl e c aus e ” f orf a i l i ng t o appe ara tthe O c to b e r1 1 , 1 9 9 0 , h e ar in g . Se e id . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew S i ng h’ s c on t ent i on s r egar di ng the l egal s uf f i c i e nc yof

the not i c e of

he ar i ng and the obl i ga t i on t o a dvi s e the i m m i gr a t i on courtof any c hang e of a dd re ss , because S i ng h fai l ed t o rai se tho se i ss ues bef ore th e a g e n c y . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . I n l i ghtof

ourdi s pos i t i on, S i ngh’ s r e que s tf orf e e s i s de ni e d. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
Order entered August 8, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00266

- CV

STEVE GRAY AND HAPPY ACCIDENTS, INC., Appellant s

V.

BRYAN WARD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 05277

- 2017



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellants’ August 6, 2018 motion to extend the time to file a reply

brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to September 4, 201 8

.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
# L_2007166EN.01001201.xml

| 28.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 166/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 166/12

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 731/2007

of 27 June 2007

correcting Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 29(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Part F of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (2) has been replaced by Regulation (EC) No 487/2007. An error which has occurred in the CN code and the description of the product ‘Yoghurt’ should be corrected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Part F of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (2) has been replaced by Regulation (EC) No 487/2007. An error which has occurred in the CN code and the description of the product ‘Yoghurt’ should be corrected.

| (2) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, Part F of Annex I is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 June 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2007.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 487/2007 (OJ L 114, 1.5.2007, p. 8).

2

---

ANNEX

‘I.F

TARIFF QUOTA UNDER ANNEX II TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND SWITZERLAND ON TRADE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

| Quota No | CN code | Description | Customs duty | Quota from 1 July to 30 June
  in tonnes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 09.4155 | ex 0401 30 | Cream, of a fat content by weight exceeding 6 % | exemption | 2 000 ’ |
| 0403 10 | Yoghurt |

Quota No

CN code

Description

Customs duty

Quota from 1 July to 30 June

in tonnes

09.4155

ex 0401 30

Cream, of a fat content by weight exceeding 6 %

exemption

2 000 ’

0403 10

Yoghurt

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following (i)
Registration Statement No. 2-82186 on Form S-8 filed March 3, 1983; (ii)
Registration Statement No. 33-48363 on Form S-8 filed June 3, 1992; (iii)
Registration Statement No. 33-79146 on Form S-8 filed May 19, 1994; (iv)
Registration Statement No. 333-06021 on Form S-8 filed June 14, 1996; (v)
Registration Statement No. 333-48697 on Form S-8 filed March 26, 1998; (vi)
Registration Statement No. 333-57585 on Form S-8 filed June 24, 1998; (vii)
Registration Statement No. 333-46726 on Form S-8 filed September 27, 2000;
(viii) Registration Statement No. 333-55574 on Form S-8 filed February 14, 2001;
and (ix) Registration Statement No. 333-87676 on Form S-8 filed May 7, 2002, and
in the related Prospectuses, of our report dated August 7, 2002 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WMS Industries Inc. and
subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of WMS Industries Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2002.


                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Chicago, Illinois
September 18, 2002
#### KENNETH IAN EDMONTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7836

July 31, 1975

538 P.2d 582

*Daniel M. Markoff,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Sherman H. Simmons,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*502OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Kenneth Ian Edmonton, convicted of rape and two counts of robbery, contends we should reverse because black and white pictures used in a photographic lineup did not truly depict the fundamental elements of the assailant’s description given by the victims. He also complains of the refusal of the trial judge to grant his motion to suppress any “in-court” identification.

The trial judge considered — and rejected — Edmonton’s challenge to the lineup and denied his motion to suppress any “in-court” identification. The record amply supports the trial court’s ruling that there was nothing impermissibly suggestive in either the photographic display or the lineup procedure. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972); Baker v. State, 88 Nev. 369, 498 P.2d 1310 (1972). Compare: Thompson v. State, 85 Nev. 134, 451 P.2d 704 (1969).

The “in-court” identification at the preliminary and at trial— by both victims — was positive and based on origins totally independent of the lineup. *Baker, supra.*Edmonton’s contentions are without merit and the judgment is affirmed.
#### LEO E. COOK, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 8335

October 23, 1975

541 P.2d 642

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, *Gary D. Armentrout,*Deputy, and *Michael R. Griffin,*Deputy, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, *Stephen P. Boland,*Deputy, Carson City, *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Calvin R. Dunlap,*Deputy, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Leo E. Cook, having been convicted in the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, petitioned for post-conviction *637relief in the First Judiciai District Court, Carson City, contending, *inter alia,*he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the prosecuting attorney had violated a plea bargain agreement. The district court rejected Cook’s contention and this appeal follows.

Cook had been charged with several crimes and, as a result of negotiations between his attorney and the district attorney, it was agreed that in exchange for a guilty plea on one of the charges that the other charges would be dismissed. Further, when the guilty plea was entered July 18, 1973, the transcript of the canvass taken by the district judge shows that there was an agreement by the representative of the prosecutor’s office that, at sentencing, “the District Attorney would recommend probation if the defendant seeks mental psychiatric help.”

When the case came back on calendar, for sentencing, on September 11, 1973, a different deputy from the Washoe County Public Defender’s office appeared on behalf of Cook as did a different deputy from the District Attorney’s office, on behalf of the State. Apparently neither counsel was familiar with the background of the case and the representative of the district attorney’s office, in total disregard of his associate’s prior representation, stated to the district judge: “Your Honor, I have never seen a man that deserved the maximum more than Mr. Cook ... I am sorry that 10 years is the maximum [sentence] for the crime that he pled.” There was no reference to probation and the maximum sentence was imposed on Cook.

It is well-established that where an accused enters a plea of guilty upon the basis of a promise or representation made by an official representing the prosecution, and the promise is unequivocal, as this record shows, then he is entitled to withdraw his plea if the promise is unfulfilled. See Fine v. Warden, 90 Nev. 166, 521 P.2d 374 (1974).

Reversed and remanded to the First Judicial District Court with instructions to transfer the proceedings to the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, in order that Leo E. Cook may plead anew.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6409

TAHRIM SUPREME C. JIHAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VAUGHN JACKSON; ANNIE ASKINS; DOCTOR BOULWARE; LAURA BESSINGER; THOMAS MCCANTS; WILLIAM D. CATOE, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-97-3852-2-22AJ) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad appeals the district court’s orderdenying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jihad v. Jackson , No. CA-97-3852-2-22AJ (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit32**

**Certification ofChief Executive Officerand Chief Accounting Officer Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the 13 weeks ended July 1, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), Stephen Russo, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Mark C. McBride, as Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Stephen Russo        |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Stephen Russo            |   |
| Chief Executive Officer  |   |
| August 9, 2006           |   |
|                     |   |
| /s/ Mark C. McBride      |   |
| Mark C. McBride          |   |
| Chief Accounting Officer |   |
| August 9, 2006           |   |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC and will be retained by Mrs. FieldsFamous Brands, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

----
#### Perry E. THORNLEY, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Regional Director; Rufus Fleming, Warden, Associate Regional Director; George Hinkle, GRCC Chief Warden; Keith Davis, Associate Warden; A. Tillery, Grievance Coordinator; Christopher Mitchell, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-7362.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2005.

Decided March 3, 2005.

*466Perry E. Thornley, Jr., Appellant pro se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Perry E. Thornley, Jr., a Vermont inmate temporarily housed in a Virginia prison at the time of the events giving rise to his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), appeals the orders of the magistrate judge granting summary judgment to all but one defendant and subsequently dismissing the complaint without prejudice as to the remaining defendant.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the magistrate judge properly granted summary judgment to all defendants other than Lt. Mitchell. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. *See Thornley v. Johnson,*No. CA-03-689 (E.D.Va. Jun. 24, 2004).

We conclude, however, that the magistrate judge erred in dismissing the complaint because Thornley’s incarceration prevented him from being present on the scheduled trial date. We have previously articulated a three-factor test for determining the proper disposition of a prisoner’s complaint when the prisoner’s presence at trial is at issue. *Muhammad v. Warden,*849 F.2d 107 (4th Cir.1988). In promulgating these factors, we encouraged district courts to explain the basis for their decision in order to allow effective appellate review. *Id.*In this case, although the magistrate judge considered the lack of funds for transporting Thornley or appointing counsel to represent him and the prejudice to the defendant that would result from delaying the proceedings until Thornley is released from prison, we are unable to discern whether, and to what extent, he considered the other factors.

We therefore vacate the order of the magistrate judge dismissing Thornley’s complaint as to Lt. Mitchell and remand for reconsideration. We express no opinion as to the merits of Thornley’s complaint. 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED*
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 65932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21694]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application.

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

SUMMARY: The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct 
certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided 
pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).

DATES: Written data or comments must be received on or before December 
1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written data or comments to the Regional Director 
(Attention: Peter Fasbender), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Ecological Services, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-
4056.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Fasbender, (612) 713-5343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Permit Number: TE113009.
    Applicant: Steven Ahlstedt, Norris, Tennessee.
    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take the white catspaw 
(Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua) and purple catspaw (E. o. obliquata) 
throughout Indiana and Ohio. The scientific research is aimed at 
enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Dated: October 12, 2005.
Wendi Weber,
Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort 
Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 05-21694 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
# L_2007150EN.01000301.xml

| 12.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 150/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 150/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 641/2007

of 11 June 2007

registering a name in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications Banon (PDO)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and Article 17(2) thereof, the application submitted by France to register the name ‘Banon’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and Article 17(2) thereof, the application submitted by France to register the name ‘Banon’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this name should be registered, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this name should be registered,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be registered.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 June 2007.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 234, 29.9.2006, p. 2.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I of the Treaty:

| Class 1.3. | Cheeses |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.3.

Cheeses

FRANCE

Banon (PDO)

---
#### MIKE HAMMOND, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, MINERAL COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8125

March 24, 1975

532 P.2d 1030

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Gary D. Armen-trout,*Deputy, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry G. Bettis,*District Attorney, Mineral County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant prosecution of appellant for possession of marijuana. The only probative or demonstrable evidence of record, suggesting that contraband even existed in proximity to appellant, are three photographs a police officer took of a plant growing in a *177garden at the home of appellant’s father, with whom appellant resides.

Deeming this evidence insufficient to hold appellant for trial, we reverse, with instructions to grant a writ of habeas corpus.
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711 FILE COPY

(512)463-1312 

### Monday, April 13,2015 Mr. Brett Brewer The Norman Law Firm 215 E. Commerce, 2nd Floor Jacksonville, TX 75766 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * 

### Mr. Jeffrey R. Pruitt Garza & Pruitt 

### 402 Peoples Street, Suite2F Corpus Christi,TX 78401 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Case Number: 14-0645 CourtofAppeals Number: 12-13-00262-CV Trial Court Number: 2011-05-0389 Style: WASSON INTERESTS, LTD.

v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, TEXAS Dear Counsel: 

### Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Motion for Extension ofTime to File Respondent's Briefon the Merits in the above-referenced case. Respondent's briefon the merits is due to be filed in this office May 11, 2015. Petitioner's reply briefis due no later than May 26, 2015 FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR THIS FILING WILL BE DISFAVORED. 

### PLEASE NOTE pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(c)(2) all documents (except documents submitted under seal) must be e-filed through eFileTexas.gov. You may file up to midnight on the due date. 

### Persons not represented by an attorney may e-file documents, bute-filing is not required. Ifyou are not an attorney you may file using the traditionalpaperfiling method. An original and 

### one copy are required for all paper filings with the Texas Supreme Court. The original is 

### required to be bound; the copy may be unbound so that it may be scanned by the Court. The paper copy must comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9. For more details, see the Court's Order Requiring Electronic Documents in the Supreme Court of Texas at 

### http:/7www.txcourts.gov/All_Archived Documcnts/SupremcCourt/AdministrativeOrdcrs/miscdo ckct/13/13916500.pdf. FILED IN COURTOFAPPEALS 12th CourtofAppeals District

TEXA: CATHY S. LUSK,THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711 FILE COPY

(512)463-1312
Please note all notices or communication about this case will be sent by email in lieu of 

### mailing paperdocuments. (See Tex. R. App.P. 9.2(c)(7)). Sincerely, Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk by Justin Chavez, Deputy Clerk cc: Ms. Cathy S. Lusk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Ms. Janet Gates