Court Opinion

ID: 4050936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 01:25:03.436785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:34.476343
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                         06-15-00065-CR
                                                              SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                    TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                                                                     7/2/2015 4:51:14 PM
                                                                        DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                                                  CLERK

  NOS. 06-15-00065-CR; 06-15-00066-CR; 06-15-00071-CR

                                                        FILED IN
                                                 6th COURT OF APPEALS
                                                   TEXARKANA, TEXAS
             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS             7/7/2015 4:17:00 PM
             SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS                 DEBBIE AUTREY
                  AT TEXARKANA                           Clerk

        CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DAVIDSON
                 APPELLANT

                            v.

                THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                     APPELLEE

     On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court
                  Of Hunt County, Texas
     Trial Court Cause Nos. 29,694; 29,922; and 30,032
          Hon. J. Andrew Bench, Judge Presiding

ANDERS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW

                                 Katherine A. Ferguson (SBN 06918050)
                                 Renshaw, Davis & Ferguson, L.L.P.
                                 2900 Lee Street, Suite 102
                                 P.O. Box 21
                                 Greenville, Texas 75403-0021
                                 Telephone: (903) 454-6050
                                 Facsimile: (903) 454-4898
                                 Email: rdflawoffice@yahoo.com

                                 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
               IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant:                        CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
                                  DAVIDSON

Defense Counsel at Trial:         D. Keith Willeford, Esq.
                                  Law Offices of Keith Willeford
                                  P.O. Box 11
                                  2615 Lee Street
                                  Greenville, Texas 75403

Appellant’s Attorney on Appeal:   Katherine A. Ferguson
                                  Renshaw, Davis & Ferguson, L.L.P.
                                  2900 Lee Street, Suite 102
                                  P.O. Box 21
                                  Greenville, Texas 75403-0021

Appellee’s Attorney at Trial:     Calvin Grogan
                                  Assistant District Attorney
                                  Hunt Co. District Attorney
                                  P.O. Box 441
                                  Greenville, Texas 75403-0441

Appellee’s Attorney on Appeal:    Calvin Grogan
                                  Assistant District Attorney
                                  Hunt Co. District Attorney
                                  P.O. Box 441
                                  Greenville, Texas 75403-0441

Trial Judge:                      Hon. J. Andrew Bench
                                  196th Judicial District Court
                                  P.O. Box 1097
                                  Greenville, Texas 75403-1097
                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of the Parties and Counsel ............................................................................ii

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................ii

Index of Authorities ..................................................................................................iii

Statement of the Case ................................................................................................ 1

Certificate of Counsel .............................. …………………………………………2

Special Statement to the Court .................................................................................. 3

Statement of the Facts ................................................................................................ 4

Issues and Authorities ................................................................................................ 7

         Indictment and Jurisdiction ......................................................................... 7
         Assistance of Counsel .................................................................................... 8
         Competence .................................................................................................... 8
         Limitations ..................................................................................................... 9
         Jeopardy ....................................................................................................... 10
         Presence of Defendant ................................................................................. 10
         Presentence Investigation ........................................................................... 10
         Punishment ................................................................................................... 10
         Back Time ..................................................................................................... 11
         Written Judgment ....................................................................................... 12
         Sentencing Procedure: Allocution ............................................................ 12
         Finger Prints ................................................................................................ 12
         Summary ...................................................................................................... 13

Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 13

Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 14

Certificate of Compliance with Rule 9.4 ................................................................. 14
                              INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES:

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, (1967) ............................................................... 2

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ........................................................ 8

STATE CASES:

Fluellen v. State, 71 S.W.3d 870(Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd) ............... 11

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) ..................................... 2

Hidalgo v. State, 983 S.W.2d 746, (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ..................................... 8

Howlett v. State, 994 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ..................................... 10

Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.) .............. 11

Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim.App.1973) ........................................ 11

Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63(Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd) .................. 11

McGowin v. State, 912 S.W.2d 837(Tex. App.—Dallas1995, no pet)...................... 9

Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ....................................... 10

Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ..................................... 10

Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) ......................................... 7

STATE STATUTES:

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART. 1.14(b)................................................................. 7

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART 12.01(4)................................................................ 9

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART. 12.01(7) .............................................................. 9
TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART 37.06. ................................................................. 10

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART 42.01 .................................................................. 12

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART 42.03. ................................................................. 12

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART.42.07. ................................................................. 12

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART 42.12 sec. 9(g) ................................................... 10

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART 46B.003 ............................................................... 9

TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §481.106 ................................................................ 9

TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §481.115 (b) ....................................................... 11

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02 (a)(1)

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.35 ............................................................................. 11

TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) ............................................................................................. 13
                           NO. 06-14-00074-CR

                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                     SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                          AT TEXARKANA

               CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DAVIDSON
                        APPELLANT

                                     v.

                        THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                             APPELLEE

            On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court
                        Of Hunt County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 29,512
             Hon. Richard A. Beacom, Jr., Judge Presiding

   ANDERS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

      NOW COMES Counsel for Appellant and respectfully submits this

brief pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                      STATEMENT OF THE CASE

      This is an appeal of the judgments and sentences in three criminal

cases in the 196th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas. Appellant
was indicted for the offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance,

Namely Methamphetamine in an Amount Less than 1 Gram in Cause No.

29,694; Burglary of a Building with Intent to Commit Theft in Cause No.

29,922; and Burglary of a Building in Cause No. 30,032. Appellant pled

guilty in all three cases. A presentence investigation was performed. On

March 2, 2015 the Trial Court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the

conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the Trial Court sentenced the

Appellant to two years in the State Jail with time credit of 282 days in Cause

No. 29,694; two years in the State Jail with time credit of 312 days in Cause

No. 29,922; and two years in the State jail with time credit of 293 days in

Cause No. 30,032. The Notice of Appeal was given on March 18, 2015 in

the trial court. The clerk’s record was filed on May 7, 2015. The reporter’s

record was filed on May 12, 2015.

                      CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

      In compliance with requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

S.Ct.1396, 18 L. Ed 2d 493 (1966) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137,

138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), the undersigned appointed attorney on appeal

for CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DAVIDSON states that she has diligently

reviewed the entire record and the law applicable thereto and, in her opinion,

the appeal is without merit and wholly frivolous in that the record reflects no
reversible error. It is also the opinion of the undersigned appointed attorney

on appeal that there are no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be

predicated. The undersigned appointed attorney on appeal has served a copy

of this brief, clerk's record, and reporter's record on Appellant.

      At that time, the undersigned attorney informed Appellant, by letter

that, in her professional opinion, the appeal was without merit. The

undersigned attorney also explained that Appellant has the right to review

the record and file a pro se brief if he so desires. The undersigned attorney

has made the record available to Appellant. Appellant has also been

informed by the undersigned attorney that he may request an extension of

time from this Honorable Court for the filing of a pro se brief.

               SPECIAL STATEMENT TO THE COURT

      After diligent search, the undersigned attorney, appointed as counsel

for Appellant on appeal has determined that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit, and further, that the record contains nothing upon which an

appeal can be predicated.

      The record in this cause reflects that Appellant's rights were protected

at every stage of the proceedings. He was represented by competent counsel

at all critical stages of the trial process. This appeal was filed on March 18,
2015 within Appellant's thirty day time limit for filing an appeal. (20,694

CR 59-60; 20,922 CR 49-50; 30,032 CR 50-51).

                                 STATEMENT OF FACTS

        Appellant CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DAVIDSON (hereinafter,

“Appellant”) was charged in Cause Nos. 29,922 and Cause No. 30,032 with

the offense of Burglary of a Building. Appellant was also charged in Cause

No. 29,694 with Possession of a Controlled Substance Namely

Methamphetamine in an Amount Less than 1 Gram. Appellant entered into

an “open” plea agreement with the State of Texas, wherein the Appellant

pled guilty in all three cases and agreed to a sentencing hearing to be

conducted by the Trial Court. (20,694 CR 28; 29,922 CR20; 30,032 CR

20)1.     An order to prepare a presentence investigation was signed on

November 5, 2014. (20,694 CR 37; 29,922 CR 29; 30,032 CR 29) On

January 22, 2015, the Trial Court conducted a review hearing, and at the

request of the State and the Appellant, ordered appointment of an expert to

evaluate Appellant’s mental health. (20,694 CR 41; 29,922 CR 33; 30,032

CR 34) (RR Vol. 2, pages 4-6) The mental health expert filed his report

with the Trial Court on February 19, 2015. (JX 2).

1
 References to the Clerk’s Record are designated as “CR #”, references to the Reporter’s Record are
designated RR Vol. ___, page #: line #, and Joint, State and Defendant’s exhibits are designated JX, SX
and DX, respectively)
      At the sentencing hearing, the State called Mariah May (“May”), an

employee with the Hunt County Community Supervision and Corrections

Department (“HCCSCD”).        (RR Vol. 3, page 7:18)      May prepared the

presentence investigation (“PSI”) for the Appellant in these cases. (RR Vol.

3, page 7:19-25) (JX 1)      May testified that in preparing the PSI, the

Appellant’s family, living, and criminal histories were explored and taken

into account. (RR Vol. 3, page 8:13-23) May also explored the Appellant’s

mental health. (RR Vol. 3, page 10:10-11:3) Appellant’s substance abuse

issues were also documented. (RR Vol. 3, [age 11:18-25)         May testified

that based upon her investigations in preparing the PSI, the Appellant did not

have the financial ability to make restitution. (RR Vol. 3, page 13:4-14)

May’s recommendation to the Trial Court in the PSI was that Appellant be

sentenced to prison. (RR Vol. 3, 14:14-16). The State rested at that point,

with the request to call on more witness if he appeared. (RR Vol. 3, page

19:12-15)

      The Appellant called Kenneth Peters (“Peters”), an investigator with

the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office. (RR Vol. 3, page 20:2-5) Peters testified

that he had spoken with Appellant about the offenses and cooperating with

the State by providing information. (RR Vol. 3, page 20:10-14) Peters

testified that he and two other investigators conducted interviews with the
Appellant, but that no useful information or leads came from the information

provided by Appellant. (RR Vol. 3, page 20:20-22).

      The Appellant next called Kelly Phillips (“Phillips”), another

investigator with the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office. Phillips sat in on the

interview with Appellant. (RR Vol. 3, page 23:2) Phillips also stated that

the information provided by Appellant was of no use. (RR Vol. 3, page

25:8-25)

      The Appellant next testified. Appellant acknowledged that he was the

same individual who pled guilty on all three cases. (RR Vol. 3, 28:17-20)

Appellant admitted that he had previously been to prison and to state jail.

(RR Vol. 3, page 29:3-14) Appellant requested that the Trial Court give him

a second chance. (RR Vol. 3, 29:20) Appellant also verified that his

criminal history as reflected in the PSI was correct. (RR Vol. 3, page 29:24-

30:1) Appellant asserted that he would be able to make restitution if the

Trial Court placed him on probation. (RR Vol. 3, page 30:2-4) The Trial

Court inquired of Appellant about his prior history as well as the

circumstances of the underlying offenses. (RR Vol. 3, page 41:2151:15)

After Appellant’s testimony, the Appellant rested. (RR Vol. 3, page 51:23)

      The State called Herman Fichtner (“Fichtner”). Fichtner testified that

he was the owner of one of the buildings burglarized by Appellant. (RR
Vol. 3, page 55:10-22) Fichtner testified that the value of the items stolen

from him was around $75,000.00 (RR Vol. 3, page 58:6-14) Fichtner also

testified that he did not want to see Appellant receive probation. (RR Vol. 3,

59:21-60:5)

      After hearing all the testimony and arguments of counsel, the Trial

Court sentenced Appellant to two years in a state jail facility in each case.

(RR Vol. 68:1-15). The Trial Court also ordered $57,941.00 in restitution in

Cause No. 29,922 (29,922 CR 35) and $13,350.00 in restitution in Cause

No. 30,032. The written judgment was prepared and entered on March 6,

2015 (RR Vol. 4, page 4:1-5:7).

                      ISSUES AND AUTHORITIES

                  INDICMENT AND JURISDICTION

      The indictments allege and contain all elements of the offense as

prescribed by Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.102(6) and TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. § 30.02. The indictments conferred jurisdiction upon the trial

court. Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). There

is no objection or complaint on the record regarding the indictments; hence

nothing is presented or preserved for appellate review. TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. ART. 1.14(b) (O’Connor’s 2014).
                      ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

      A complete review of the record reflects that Appellant was

represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings as required by

the Texas and U.S. Constitutions, and that his counsel joined in all decisions

as required by law. Hidalgo v. State, 983 S.W.2d 746, 750 (Tex. Crim. App.

1999). Counsel is ineffective only if his representation of Appellant falls

below a minimum standard for representation and his errors undermine the

reliability of the result to the appellant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687(1984). In this case trial counsel vigorously represented Appellant,

objected to evidence, cross-examined all witnesses, and admitted evidence

on Appellant’s behalf. Nothing in the record reflects that trial counsel’s

representation of Appellant fell below the minimum standard.

                              COMPETENCE

      “A person is incompetent if he lacks either (1) sufficient present

ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational

understanding; or (2) a rational as well as a factual understanding of the

proceedings against him. A person is presumed competent to stand trial and

shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a

preponderance of the evidence.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART.
46B.003 (O’Connor’s 2014); see McGowin v. State, 912 S.W.2d 837, 840

(Tex. App.—Dallas1995, no pet).

      The    Trial   Court    ordered   a    competency     evaluation   of

Appellant in these cases. (20,694 CR 41; 29,922 CR 33; 30,032 CR 34) (RR

Vol. 2, pages 4-6) The mental health expert filed his report with the Trial

Court on February 19, 2015. (JX 2). The report stated: “It is also my

opinion that while he might feel better with a medication, medications are

not necessary to complete his legal requirements and he is fully capable of

engaging competently with the courts and with his attorney.” (JX 2)

                             LIMITATIONS

      The offense in Cause No. 29,694 was alleged to have been committed

on or about October 4, 2013 and the indictment was presented April 25,

2014. (29,694 CR. 12). This is within the three year limitation for felonies

provided in TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART. 12.01(7) (O’Connor’s 2014).

The offense in Cause No. 29,922 was alleged to have been committed on or

about November 23, 2013 and the indictment was presented August 22,

2014. (29,922 CR. 6). The offense in Cause No. 30,032 was alleged to have

been committed on or about December 10, 2013 and the indictment was

presented October 24, 2014. (30,022 CR. 9-10). This is within the five year

limitation for felonies provided in TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART.
12.01(4) (O’Connor’s 2014). Furthermore, the Appellant did not make any

challenge to the indictments on the basis of expiration of the statute of

limitations.   Limitations is a defensive issue, and must be raised by

defendant or it is waived. Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840, 844 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1998); Howlett v. State, 994 S.W.2d 663.667 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

                               JEOPARDY

      There is no jeopardy argument because Appellant was indicted and

prosecuted in the cases and nothing in the record suggests the Appellant had

previously been charged with and tried for these same offenses.

                     PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT

      Appellant was present when the verdict was pronounced as required

by TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART.37.06. (O’Connor’s 2014)

                  PRE SENTENCE INVESTIGATION

      A pre-sentence report was not required in this case pursuant to TEX.

CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART.42.12 sec. 9(g). (O’Connor’s 2014). However,

one was prepared. (20,694 CR 37; 29,922 CR 29; 30,032 CR 29)

                             PUNISHMENT

      A sentence outside the maximum or minimum range of punishment is

unauthorized by law and therefore illegal. Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804,

806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Appellant was charged with three state jail
felonies. Appellant’s sentence of two years in a State Jail Facility of the

Texas Department of Corrections, Institutional Division in each is within the

statutory range of punishment for the offenses. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY

CODE § 481.115(b); TEX. PENAL CODE §12.35.

      In Texas, the courts have traditionally held that as long as the

punishment assessed is within the range prescribed by the Legislature in a

valid statute, the punishment is not excessive, cruel, or unusual. Jordan v.

State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App.1973). Yet, in Jackson v.

State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 845 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.), this Court

recognized that a prohibition against grossly disproportionate punishment

survives under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

apart from any consideration of whether the punishment assessed is within

the range established by the Legislature. Fluellen v. State, 71 S.W.3d 870,

873 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63,

68-69 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd).

                               BACK TIME

      The Trial Court gave Appellant 282 days credit in Cause 29,694; 312

days credit in Cause No. 29,922; and 293 days credit in Cause No. 30,032

(RR Vol. 4, page 4:16-19) 29,964 CR 44; 29,922 CR 35; 30,032 CR 35).
Appellant was credited with all back time, as reflected in the judgments,

accurately calculated, as required by law.

                         WRITTEN JUDGMENT

      The written judgments conform to the court's oral pronouncement of

judgment and sentence, as required by law. (RR Vol. 3, page 68:2-13)

(29,694 CR 44-47; 29,922 CR 35-38; 30,032 CR 35-38).

             SENTENCING PROCEDURE: ALLOCUTION

      Article 42.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that:

"Before pronouncing sentence, the defendant shall be asked whether he has

anything to say why the sentence should not be pronounced against him."

TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART. 42.07 (O’Connor’s 2014). The trial court

in this case did not make that inquiry and trial counsel did not object. (RR

Vol. 3, page 67:25). However, the record does not reflect that any

substantive rights of Appellant were impacted by the trial court’s failure to

ask Appellant this question. The trial court properly pronounced sentence in

Appellant's presence as required by TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART. 42.03.

(Vernon’s 2014).

                             FINGERPRINTS

      The record reflects that Appellant's right thumb prints were taken as

required by TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART. 42.01(23) and TEX. CODE
CRIM. PRO. ANN. ART. 38.33 (Vernon’s 2014). (29,694 CR 44-47; 29,922

CR 35-38; 30,032 CR 35-38).

                                  SUMMARY

      The undersigned attorney has reviewed the entire record to determine

if any objections were made on Appellant's behalf which would support a

point of error on appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) (O’Connor’s 2014). In

counsel’s professional opinion, the trial court displayed no prejudice toward

either side. For above reasons, appellate counsel found no arguable grounds

on which to appeal the instant conviction, and Appellant should receive the

opportunity to file a pro se brief.

              CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

      WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned counsel

being of the earnest opinion that no arguable points of error appear in the

record at the plea or sentencing stages of the case, Counsel prays that this

Honorable Court will grant her Motion for Counsel to Withdraw and afford

Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief asserting all grounds of which

he knows to reverse the judgment of the trial court below and render

judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, remand the cause to the trial court for

further proceedings.

                                  Respectfully submitted,
                                RENSHAW,        DAVIS      &    FERGUSON,
                                L.L.P.

                                By:   /s/ Katherine A. Ferguson
                                      Katherine     A. Ferguson          (SBN
                                      06918050)

                                2900 Lee Street, Suite 102
                                P.O. Box 21
                                Greenville, Texas 75403-0021
                                Telephone: (903) 454-6050
                                Facsimile: (903) 454-4898
                                Email:       rdflawoffice@yahoo.com

                      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I certify that a true and correct copy of the Anders Brief in Support of
Motion to Withdraw was sent by first class United States Mail, postage
prepaid, to the Honorable Noble Walker, Hunt County District Attorney,
P.O. Box 441, Greenville, Texas 75403-0441 on this the 2nd day of July
2015.

      I further certify that a true and correct copy of Anders Brief in
Support of Motion to Withdraw was sent by first class United States mail,
postage prepaid to CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DAVIDSON,
TDJC#01988392, Fabian Dale Dominguez State Jail, 6535Cagnon Road,
San Antonio, Texas 78252-2202 on this the 2nd day of July, 2015.

                                             /s/ Katherine A. Ferguson
                                             Katherine A. Ferguson

         CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9.4

      Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4, this certifies that
this document complies with the type volume limitations because it is
computer generated and does not exceed 15,000 words. Using the word
count feature of Microsoft Word, the undersigned certifies that this
document contains 2,504 words in the entire document, except in the
following sections: caption, identities of parties and counsel, statement
regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of
the case, statement of issues presented, signature, certificate of service and
certificate of compliance. This document also complies with the typeface
requirements as it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface
using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman.

                                             /s/ Katherine A. Ferguson
                                             Katherine A. Ferguson