### NUM BERS 13-0 7-00 634- CR 13-07- 0063 5-CR 13-07- 0063 6-CR 13-0 7-00 637- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellan t,
v . JOSEP H VOT TA , A

/K/A JOS EPH VIT A L, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 24 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of Ja ckso n Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Opin ion b y

C hie f J us tice Vald ez T he St ate app eals f rom th e trial court’s judgme nt dism issing the charges against appel lee , J oseph Vot ta, a/k/a J oseph Vi tal , based on his not hav ing been broug ht to t ri al
w ithin th e limitat ion pe riod specif ied in Article III of the Inte rstate Agreem ent on Deta iner’s Act( IAD A)

. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 51.14 (V er non 2006)

. The Stat e as ser tsA p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r . 1 3
- 0 7 - 0 0 6 3 6
- CR 1 A p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r . 1 3
- 0 7 - 0 0 6 3 7 - CR. 2 A p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r . 1 3
- 0 7 - 0 0 6 3 4
- CR 3 A p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r . 1 3
- 0 7 - 0 0 6 3 5 - CR 4 2 fi v e i s s ue s o n ap pe al

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND In O cto ber

1996, the Jac ks on C ounty D is tr ic t At tor ney ’s Off ic e i ndi cte d appel lee on charg es of po ss ess ion of coca ine and poss ess ion of heroin

. See T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E TY 1 2 C OD E A NN . § 481.115 (V er non 200 ?)

. Each i ndi ctmentr eferr ed to appellee by hi s a li as “J oseph Vi tal .” Ap pel lee fail ed to appear on t hese charg es in Nov ember 1996. In F ebr uar

y 1997, the Jac ks on C ounty D is tr ic t At tor ney ’s Off ice i n dic ted a ppel lee on c harg es of b a il ju mping and failu re to appear . Ag ain , eac h i ndi ctmentr eferr ed to 3 4 ap pe l l ee a s “ J os ep h Vi ta l .” W hi l e th es e c ha rg es w ere pe nd i ng , ap pe l l ee b ec am e inc ar cerated in a federa l cor re cti onal i nst it uti on i n Mi nersv il le, Penns y lv ani a. On M ar ch 11, 2005, the J ack son Cou nty Sher iff’s d epar

tment sent a l e tt e r to t he M ine rs v il le federal peni tenti ar

y adv is ing it to “p lea se pla ce a det ain er on V otta, Jo seph, AKA Vi tal , J oseph .” The le tter

furth er st ated that appel lee ’s outs tandi ng w ar ra nts w er e i ss ued out of the 24t h Judi ci al Cou rt , J ack son Cou nty , Tex as and re lat e to the fol low ing ch arg es: “ Poss ess ion of a C ontroll ed Sub sta nce in Penal ty Group 1, to w itco cai ne ( Bond Fo rfei tur e) and Poss ess ion of a C ontroll ed Substan ce in Penal ty Group 1, to w it , heroin ( Bond for feiture) .” On J u ly19, 2005 t he J ack son Cou nty Sher iff’s D epar

tment re cei v ed a Det ain er Act ion Lett er

from t he M ine rs v il le federal peni tenti ar y adv is ing i t t hat “ [a] detai ner has been f iled against [Jo seph Vital] in y our favor charg in g P ossessio n of a Controlled Subst ance – C ocai ne and Heroin .” O n J uly 28, 2005 , a p p ell ee ex ecut ed a “R eq uestfor F ina l3

Di spos it ion of

Detai ner ” pursuantto the Intersta te Ag re ement on Detai ners Act. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 51.14

. Tw o copi es of ap pel lee ’s re q uest w er e then sentby the Mi nersv il le federal peni tenti ar y to the Jac ks o n C ounty D is tr ic t At tor ney ’s Office a nd th e “Jackson Count y , Clerk of Court.” T he record shows th at bot h the Distri ct Atto rney’s Of f ice and t he county

cl er k’ s o ff ic e r ecei v ed a copy of appel lee ’s r eq ueston A ug ust9, 2005, by certif ied m ail. On N ov ember

7, 2005 t he J ack son Cou nty Di str ic t Atto rn ey ’s Off ic e re cei v ed a let ter f ro m t h e Mi n e rs vil le fe d e ra l p e n it e n t ia ry a d vis in g t h e d is t ri c t a t t o rn e y t h a t“9 0 d a ys h a ve pass ed s inc e r ecei pt of our paper w or k” and that “u nder

the [IAD A] the indi v idu al must be brou ght t o trial within o ne-h und red an d eighty days from receipt of the IA D pape rw ork.” See Id . ar t I II( a)

. The le tter re f e re d to appel lee as “ Jos eph Vo tta. ” On Febr uar y 7, 2006 t he Jackson Count y

Distri ct Atto rney’s of

f ice received a secon d lette r from the Minersvil le federal peni tenti ar

y adv is ing the dis tr ic t at tor ney that “more than 180 day s h av e el apsed since [a ppe llee’s] request, th erefore the I ADA has n ow expired.” See I d

. Ag ain , t he l etter re ferr ed to appel lee as “ Jos eph Vo tta. ” On O cto ber

16, 2006, appel lee fil ed a pro s e moti on to dism iss all four pendi ng charg es for fail ing to br ing hi m to t ri al w it hin the 180- day per iod prov ided b y A rt ic le III (a ) of the IA DA

. See id

. A h ear ing on a ppel lan t’ s mot ion to dis mis s w as hel d on Aug ust30, 2007. O n S e p t e mb e r

2 8 , 2 0 0 7 t h e t r i a l c o u rtg r a n t e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s mi s s a nd si g ned an or der

di smi ss ing all four indi ctment s w it h prej udi ce. The State subs eq uentl y fil ed a ti mely noti ce of appeal

.

II. T H E I N TER STA TE AGRE E MENT ON D ETA I N ERS ACT By i ts sec ond and thi rd i ss ues, the Stat e arg ues that appel lee fail ed to compl y w it h4

the p ro v is ion s reg ar din g hi s req uestf or f ina l dis posi ti on of

charg es pursuantto the I AD A. By i ts fourth and fifth is sues , the S tate cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d i n di smi ss ing i ts failu re to appear and bai l jumpi ng ind ic tments becau se no detai ner w as ev er l odg ed w it h respe ct to tho se cha rg es. Beca use th ese issues overlap, w e w ill con sider the m to gether. A . S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w W e c o n d u c ta d e no vo r ev iew of the l eg al q uest ion of w hether there has been
co m pli ance w it h the r eq uirements of the I AD A. W alker v

. State , 2 0 1 S

. W

. 3 d 8 4 1 , 845 (Tex

. App.–W aco 2006, pet. re f’d) ; State v . Mi les , 101 S.W .3d 1 80, 1 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2003, no pet .) ; Lind

ley v

. State , 33 S. W .3d 926 , 930 (Tex. App–Am arillo 2000 , pet . ref ’d). W e revi ew any factu al f indings und erly ing the issue of comp liance wi th th e IADA un der a cl ear ly er ron e ous sta ndard. W alk er , 201 S.W .3d a t 845 ; Mi les , 101 S.W .3d a t 183 ; Lin dle y , 33 S.W .3d a t 930

. B. A pp licab le L aw The IAD A is a cong re ss ion all y -s anct ion ed c ompactbetw een t he U nit ed St ates and the s tates and is su bje ct to feder al cons tr uct ion

. Cuyler v

. A da ms , 449 U .S. 433, 442 (1 981) ; E

s p i noza v . State , 949 S.W .2d 10, 11 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 199 7, pe t. ref ’d); Mi les , 101 S.W .3d a t 1 8 4 n.2. Thi s a g re ement al low s p ro sec utors i n one jur is dic ti on to acq uire the pr esenc e of de f e n d a n ts impr is oned i n oth er j ur is dic ti ons for tr ial pr ior to the ex pirati on of

their se ntenc es. Al

abam a v . Bozem an , 533 U. S. 146, 148 ( 2001) ; New York
v . Hill , 528 U .S. 110, 111 ( 2000) ; see State v . W il lia ms , 93 8 S. W .2 d 45 6, 460 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1997) ; State v . Sephus , 32 S.W .3d 369, 375 (Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2000, pet. re f’d)

. After the p ro sec utor

pl aces a de tai ner

on a pr is oner , th a t pr is oner may r eq uestsp eedy dis posi ti on of

the charg es under

Ar ti cl e II I of the IAD A. See Fex v

. Michi gan , 507 U .S. 43,5

44 ( 1993) ( defini ng deta ine r as “a r eq uestfil ed by a c ri minal j u st ic e ag ency w it h the ins ti tuti on i n w hic h a p ri soner i s i ncarcerated, as ki ng thatthe pr is oner be h e ld f or

the ag ency , or

that the ag ency be adv is ed w hen the pr is oner ’s re lea se is i mminent .” ); accord Mi les , 101 S.W .3d at 183. Onc e notified of the pri soner ’s req uest , the prosec utor has 180 day s t o br ing the pr is oner to tr ial

. If the p ro sec utor ex ceeds thos e 180 day s, the c harg es ar e di smi ss ed w it h preju dic e, an d the deta ine r becomes i nv ali d. S ee T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 51.14, art. III(a ), (c) ; se e al so W alk er , 201 S.W .3d a t 845

. To re q uestf ina l dis posi ti on unde r IAD A ar ti cl e II I, the d efendant mus t c ause “t o be delivered to th e prose cuting of f icer and th e ap prop riate cou rt of the pro secut ing of

f icer’s jurisd ict ion w ri tten noti ce of the pl ace of his i mpri sonmentand his r eq uestfor a final dispo sition to be m ade o f t he indictm ent

. . . ” T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 51.14, ar t. III (a ); see W

alk er , 201 S.W .3d a t 846 ; Lin dle y , 33 S.W .3d at 929. The req uestmustbe
acc ompani ed by

a c erti ficat e of the a p p ro p ria te offici al hav ing cu sto dy of the p ri soner sta ti ng : the t er m of commi tment under w hic h the pris oner

is b ein g hel d; t he ti me al re ady ser v ed; the ti me re maini ng to be ser v ed on the sent ence; the amount of go od ti me ear ned; t h e t im e of

parole e lig ibility

of the prison er; and any decision of the sta te pa role agency re lat ing to the p ri soner . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 51 .14 , art. III(a). T he IA DA pr ov ide s that the defendant can sati sfythe r eq uirement for se ndi ng the w ri tten noti ce and
r eq ue s t for

fi na l d i s po s i ti on u nd er ar ti c l e II I by g i v i ng i t to th e offi c i al ha v i ng c us to dy o f hi m, w ho mus t t hen forw ar d i t to the appropr iat e prosec uti ng off ic ial and cour t v ia re g is ter ed or cer ti fied mai l. Id . ar

t. III (b ). C. A nal ysis It is undisp uted that the M ine rs v il le cor re cti onal faci li ty se nt ap pel lee ’s r eq uestforAt t he hear i ng on appel l ee’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss, appel l ee el i ci t ed t est i m ony f r om em pl oy ees o ft he 5 d i s tri c t a n d c o u n ty c l e rk ’ s o ff i c e . 6 final di spos it ion to the p ro sec uti ng attor ney of J ack son Cou nty

. It is furth er undi sput ed th at a c opy of appel lee ’s r eq uestw as re cei v ed by the Jac ks on C ounty

co unty cl er k’ s o ff ic e. The Stat e arg ues that, b e caus e i t w as the c ounty cl er k rather

than the dis tr ic t c ler k t hat signed for and receiv ed a ppe llee’s IADA pa perwork, appe llant th erefore failed to comp ly
w it h the IAD A’ s req uirement t hat h e del iv er hi s req uestto the “ appropr iat e co u rtof the prose cuting of

f icer’s juri sdiction .” Id . ar t I II( a)

. W e are s kept ic al of the St ate’ s a rg ument, espe cially

in lig ht of

w itness te stimo ny tha t seem ed to indicate that pap erw ork erroneo usly f iled in the coun ty clerk’s of f ice w ill usua lly

g et filtered to the district clerk’s off ice. How ever, w e need not a ddr ess the is sue. 5 In Fex v . Michi

gan , the Uni ted States Supreme Cour t hel d tha t ar

ti cl e II I( a) ’s 180- day period do es no t begin unt il the request for f inal d is p o s it ion of charges is actually re ce ived by th e co u rtan d th e p ro se cu to r o f th e ju ris d ict io n w h e re th e ch a rge s a re pe n d in g. See F ex , 507 U .S a t 52; acc or d Li ndley , 33 S.W .3d a t 929 -3 0; W alk er , 201 S.W .3d a t 844

. Atta ched to appell ee’ s motion to dis mis s i s a co py of appel lee ’s IAD A pape rw or k t hat w as ini ti ally r ecei v ed by

the count y

cl er k’ s o ff ic e on Aug ust9, 2005. Appel lee ’s moti on to dis mis s w as filed w it h the di str ic t c ler k’ s o ff ice o n O ct o b e r 16, 2 006. A h ear ing w as not hel d on appel lee ’s moti on until Augus t 30, 2007, 318 day s l ater

. Acc or din g to Fex , article III (a )’ s 1 80 day per iod beg ins w hen t he pr is oner ’s r eq uesti s a ctu all y r ecei v ed by

the tr ial cour t. See F ex , 507 U.S. at 52. H er e, t he c our t recei v ed appe ll ee’ s req uestw hen he filed his moti on to di smi ss w it h hi s I AD A pape rw or k a ttac hed. T he record c lea rl y sh ow s t hat bot h the trial cou rt a nd the Ja ckson Coun ty District Atto rney had ap pellee ’s req uest on f ile for mor e tha n the 180-day per iod al lot ted b y

ar ti cl e II I( a) of the I AD A. See U nited St ates7

v . Daily , 488 F.3d 79 6, 80 1 (8th Cir. 200 7) (fin ding IADA 180 -day period did no t com me nce u n ti l p ro se cu to r an d tri a l co u rtrec e ived th e ap p e lla n t’ s re que stfo r f in a l d isp o sit io n th ro u gh his mo tion to dismiss). W e ho ld tha t app ellee has satisf ied his bu rden of provi ng that his IADA re quest w as re cei v ed by the prosec uti ng off ic er and the a ppropr iat e c our t of the pr osec utor ’s off ic er ’s j ur is dic ti on. Id

. The Stat e f u rt h e r arg ues that appel lee fail ed to co mply w it h the procedu ra l re q uirements of IAD A bec ause he submi tted his re q uest for final dis posi ti on under his r eal nam e “Josep h Vot ta” and n ot “Josep h Vital;” the alias used byapp ellee when he w as f irst ar re ste d by

the Jac ks on C ounty

Sher iff’s d epar

tment f o r th e pos ses si on of coc ain e and hero in charges. T h e r e c o rd indee d sho w s that app ellee su bm itted his IADA pap erw ork und er the n am e Jose ph Vo tta a nd, altho ugh his certif ic a t e o f in ma te sta tus ref ers to his pendi ng poss ess ion of c ocai ne and heroin charg es, no re ferenc e to th e correspon din g ind ic tment numbers ar e made. The Stat e cont ends that “t o say that thi s w as su f f icient noti ce to t he prosec utor i s t o al low

a pr is oner

to g iv e not ic e under

a di ff er ent n a m e and throw the burden on the prosec utor to inv est ig ate to tr y to find out w ho th e not ic e r eferr ed to an d w hat c ases the pr is oner w anted to di spos e of.” The S tate’ s a rg ument i s p ersuas iv e, and w hil e w e w oul d undou btedl y be c ri ti cal of any

pr is oner

w ho i ntent ion all y

us ed obst ruction ist tactics, such as altered nam es, to circumvent the IADA and av oid pr osec uti on, t he s it uati on here does not f all into suc h a cat eg or y . The re cord show s t hat the S tate lo d ged i ts detai ner ag ain st appel lee on M ar ch 5, 20 05, w hen i t s ent cor re spond ence to the Mi nersv il le federal penitent iar y aski ng that appell ee be detai ned for outs tandi ng w ar ra nts

. The le tter se nt by the Stat e re f e rs to ap pel lee as “ Vott a, J oseph , AKA Vi tal , J oseph .” I n re spons e, the Mi nersv il le pr is on sent a “d etai ner act ion l etter” to t he Jackson Count y

Sherif f ’s Departm ent in f o rming it that a de taine r had be en f iled against8

inmat e “ Vott a, J oseph , al ias Vi tal , Jos eph.” Thus, the record c lea rl y sh ow s t hat t he St ate
w as aware of app ellee’s real name and alias. T he fa ct tha t app ellee su bm itted his IADA paper w or k u nder

the name “Joseph Vott a” does not defeat hi s I AD A s peedy -t ri al cl aim. As an al ter nati v e arg ument, the S tate cont ends that becau se no detain er w as filed
w ith rega rd t o its bail jumpin g and failure to a ppe ar indictm ent s, the trial court erred in dism issing tho se cha rg es pu rsuan t to the IADA. Article III of the IA DA app lies ex clusiv ely t o “u n t ri e d i n d ic t m e n t s , in fo rm a t io n s o r c o m p la in t s o n t h e b a s is o f wh ic h d e t a in e rs h a ve bee n lodged against th e prisone r.” T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 51 .14 , art. III (a). Th is sec ti on has been int er pr eted to mean that the 180- day time peri od, a nd th us the d is mis sal re q uirement, is limi ted t o pendi ng ch arg es upon w hic h the deta ine r is bas ed. See U nited Sta tes v

. San ders , 669 F.2 d 609 , 610 (9th Cir. 1982 ) ( 180 -day l imit of IADA app lies only to c harg es pendi ng at the ti me the detai ner is fil ed) ; Espi noza v . State , 949 S.W .2d 1 0, 12
- 13 ( Tex

. A p p . – S a n A n t o n i o 1 9 9 7 , p e t

. r e f’ d ) ( s a me )

. H e r e , t h e d e t a i n e r l o d g ed bythe S t a t e i d e n t i fi e d a p p e l l e e ’ s p e n d i n g c h a rg e s i n t he fo l l o w i n g m a n n e r : “ P o s s e s s i o n o f a Con troll ed Substan ce in Penal ty Group 1, to w itco cai ne ( Bond F or feitur e) and Poss ess ion of a Controlled Subst ance in Pena lty Group 1 , t o wi t , h eroin (Bon d forfeiture ).” T he f act the S tate li ste d “ Bond F or feitur e” as a pe ndi ng cr imi nal charg e cl ear ly show s i ts int ent t o pr osec ute a ppel lee on the p e ndi ng bai l jumpi ng and failu re to appear i ndi ctment s. See Kubos h v

. State , 241 S.W .3d 60, 64 (Tex. Crim. App

. 200 7) (recogniz ing bond forfeiture as a crimina l matt er). W e c oncl ude t hat a p p e llee sati sfied his burden of prov ing co mpli ance w it h the
r e q u i r e me n t s o f a rt ic le III

. See Walk er , 201 S.W .3d a t 846 ; Lin dle y , 33 S.W .3d a t 930

. Iss ues tw o throug h fiv e are ov er ru led

.9 III . F I NDI NGS OF F A CT A ND C ONC LUSI ONS OF L AW By it s f irs t is su e , t h e St a te co n te n d s the tr ia l co u rterr e d in fa ili n g to m a ke f in d in gs of fact and conc lus ion s of l aw after bei ng r eq uest ed to do s o. Rel y ing on Cul len v . State , 195 S. W .3d 6 96 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 6 ), the Sta te c ontends that“ the fai lure of the tr ial cour t t o ac t and make findi ng s of fact and conc lus ion s o f law eff ect iv ely

deni es the S tate the r ig ht t o an appeal bas ed upon w hat fact s ar e ac tual ly found by

the tr ial co urt as opp osed to w hat this court m ight g uess th e trial court foun d the facts to be.” In Cul len , t he Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls h e ld t h a t “ upon t he req uestof the losing party on a mot ion to su ppre ss ev iden ce, th e trial court . . . mu st ma ke f indings of fact and c oncl usi on of l aw

adeq uate to prov ide an a ppel lat e c our t w it h a b asi s u pon w hic h to rev iew the trial court’s ap plication of the law to th e facts.” Id

. a t6 9 9

. W e d o n o tb e li e ve the reason ing su ppor

ti ng the cour

t’ s h old ing i n Cul

len appl ies i n thi s c ase. W hen r uli ng on a moti on to su ppr ess ev ide nce, a t ri al co u rt generall y makes cr edi bil it y

dec is ion s a nd factua l deter minat ion s a bout disp u te d hist or ic al ev ents

. On appeal , i f the tr ial cour

t had not made findi ng s of fact , the appel lat e cour t must “v iew

the evidence in th e lig ht m ost fa v orab le to the trial court’s ruling and assu me that the trial court made i mpli ci t findi ng s o f f actthatsu ppor t i ts ru li ng as l ong as thos e findi ng s are suppo rt ed by th e r ecord .” Id

. a t 698

. In Cul len , t he St ate a rg ued t hat i ts ri g ht t o appea l an order g ra nti ng a mot ion to suppress is thw arted w hen appell ate rev iew of the order

i s b ased on pr esumed facts ra ther

than findi ng s o f actual facts

. Id . at697. The cour t ag re ed, s tati ng “t he tr ial co urt’ s refusal to ac t prev ented the c our t of appeal s from meani ng ful r ev iew of the d e c is io n t o gra n tt h e m o t io n t o su p p re s s . W it h o u tf in d in gs o f f a c ta n d c o n c lu s io n s o f la w, the cour to f a p p e a l s w a s l e fti n t h e u n d e s i r a b l e p o s i t i o n o f h a v i n g t o m a k e a s s u mp ti ons10

abo ut th e reaso ns for the trial cou rt’s decision.” Id . at698. In c ontrast , as pr ev iou sl y note d, w her e a pri soner has r eq uest ed final di spos it ion of a pendi ng ca se in another jur is dic ti on, to show

co mpli ance w it h the Ac t, he need onl y sh ow that pr oper

noti ce w as sentto the “ prosec uti ng off ic er ” and t o the “ appropr iat e cour t of the pr osec uti ng off ic er ’s j ur is dic ti on” v ia cer ti fied mai l. See id . art III(a), (b ). W h e t h er a pr is oner has met h is burden of demons tr ati ng co mp l i a n c e w i t h t he procedu ra l re q uirements of the act, re q uires few , i f any , c re dib il it y dete rmi nati ons and, as show n abov e, i s d eci ded prima ri ly b y a facial revi ew of the do cum ent s provi ded bythe prison er. Th e trial court’s failu re to make findi ng s did not re q uire us to make any ass umpti ons about the facts or the re asons for t he tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on. Nor do w e f in d t h a t th e State has been pr ev ented f ro m pre se n ti n g its grou n d s fo r re view. A cc o rd in gly, th e t ria l co u rt ’s fa ilu re t o m a ke f in d in gs and c oncl usi ons w as not e rror . The Stat e’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er di smi ss ing the S ta te ’s pos ses si on of coc ain e (a ppel lat e ca u se nu m b e r 13 -0 7 -0 0 6 3 6 -CR) , p o ss e ss io n of he ro in (ap p e lla te ca use number 13- 07- 00637- CR ), bai l jumpi ng (appel lat e cause number 13- 07- 00634- CR ), and failu re to appear ( appel lat e c ause number 13- 07- 00635- CR ) ind ic tments

.

____________________ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Publ is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of June, 2008.