Mr. Abel Acosta¥Clerk l Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas P.O.Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dear Clerk, . July 8,2015 Please find enclosed Applicants Reply to States Response to his writ of habeas corpus-writ no. WR-82,685~01, Cause No. B-35,839-A.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Billy W..Haynes #1723231 Clements H/S 9601 Spur 591 Amarlllo, Texas 79107 RECE|VED |N couRT oF cR:MaNALAPPEALs _JuL 132915 Abe!Acosia,Gler£<

CAUSE NO. B-35,839-A WRIT NO. WR-82,685-01 EX parte ’ lIN‘THE DISTRICT COURT ' 1618t; JUDICIAL DISTRICT BILLY WAYNE HAYNES ' ` ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICANTS REPLY TO STATES RESPONSE AND.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FA€T AND GONCEUSiONS ` TO APPLIGANTS WRIT OF HABEAS G©RPUS 11.07

f’ . GROUND 1 State argues Applicant has provided no evidence proving or even implying that jailhouse informant Micah May gave false or mis- leading testimony.~ APPLICANT-REPLY.` Applicant has requested a evidentiary hearing at every opport -unity so that he could in fact establish the record for the' Courts. With a hearing and the assistance of counsel for the purpose.of the hearing, he would be able to show that May did give false and misleading testimony, but was not afforded that opportunity.

Applicant contends that the State knew May's testimony was indeed false, but used it anyway, in an attempt to corroborate l accomplice witness testimony; The State did not introduce May's letter into evidence, only chose to ask him certain questions on the stand; May had his own version of the events, and did not corroborate any of the testimony from any other witness.

Anyone reading it and knowing the facts of the case_could easly see May was only hoping to get something in return for his false testimony§.as he done so. Surely the State done a investigation on May, to see if he could have actually talked to Applicant5 and discovered that he never lived around him, no shared activities. This was May's Second attempt to sell his lies, he wrote the State in the end of 2010, but they_didn‘t-use-that,»and ten to.14 days before trialj they decide to use his second letter. How convenient.

Applicant has tried to obtain a copy of May's letter? he even wrote to Mr.Leach-trial counsel¥and requested it, and in a reply 2.

dated January 30,2013, was told quote;" I looked for a copy of May’s statement, but could.not find it.": Applicant has.done all ,he could to obtain a copy of May's letter.to the.State. lt was his hopes that he could have requested and got a copy in. a hearing. 7 n State argues that discrepencies in testimony do not alone make a case for perjury¢Losada v. wstate,721 S.w 2d 305(T.c.A.

1986) and that may be so, but:there where way`more then just a few discrepancies in May's statement, he had a totally different` version; Ex parte Weinstein,421 SW3d 656~67L(T.C.A. 2014)-Testimony need not be perjured to constitute a due process violation; rather, it is sufficient that the testimony was false.

Applicant never contended that May testified that he shared Common activities, as is the States contention, he said that May has never been housed with Applicant} they Shared no common activities, in an attempt to show that it never happend3 there was never an opportunity; and Applicant has NEVER had a` conversation with May on any level! May was moved to the same housing area, 2000 block, only after he agreed to testify for the State against Applicant, and this was against his wishes. (RR vol 11 241). ` Applicant maintains that State used false testimony from one of its witness to secure the'conviction; a violation of his due process,_U.S.C.Amend;lé, Texas Const.l§§lO;IQ; and it capitalized on it.in its closing arguments-US.v.Sanfilippo,.

564 F.zd 176;179(5ch cir. 1977)'5tates_closing arguments` (RR vol 13 34) "he told Micah May, excuse the racial slur, that bitchass mexican got what he deserved" 3.

Ihis was the last thing the jury heard before retiring to begin deliberations. _ n bn The Court of Criminal'Appeals has held that, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated where the state knowingly uses perjured testimony to obtain a conviction. fx parte Ghahreman,332 SW$d.470,483(T.C.A. 2011) US v;Bagley5473 U}S.667,669,105 S.Ct.3375(1985)-The Supreme Gourt has suggested that the knowingly use of "false" testimony is%. treated the same as knowingly use of perjerd testimonyi- Applicant has shown diligence in trying to obtain a copy of Mays letter, as well as trying to get a hearing so that he can properly establish the record to support.his'claims outlined in his writ of habeas corpus, but was denied the opportunity by the court. He contends he has never had a conversation with Micah May, there has never been an opportunity to do so, and can prove this with the assistance of'a hearing-and counsel for the purpose of the hearing.

Applicant prays this court GRANT relief.sought, or in the alternative; order the.trial court to hold a hearing so that he can establish the record.

GROUND 2.

State contends that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate May is without merit; and that no evidence was presented to sustantiate Applicant's claims, and he failed to show what an investigation would have shown.

APPLICANT'S REPLY.

Applicant did,.in his memorandum in support of his.writ, show what an investigation would have shown. May has never lived in »a cell with nor around Applicant, there was never an-oppottunity 4.

for Applicant to have a conversation with May; among other things. lf counsel had done a investigation, prior to trial, he would have been able to show that what May.claimed was in deed false.

Counsel had asked Applicant who was May and was told he did not know, that should have by itself warranted a investigationy and when counsel requested an interview with May through his counsel, and was told no, that should have added to the need for an` investigation. (RR vol 11 233). Counsel did not object to May's testimony, only parts, and he objected to the purported threat by May, but nothing'more-_ The courts of appeals are in agreement that failure to conduct any pretrial investigation generally constitutes a clear instance Of ineffectivenessu See,e.g`,Sullivan,Sl@ F»Zd at 1391-92_ (prefunctory attempts to contact,.attempts to contact witness not reasonable); Code v. Montgomery,799 F.Zd 1481,1483(11th_0ir.

1986)(counsel's performance fell below competency standard where he interviewed-only one.witness); Nealy v} Cabana,764 F.Zd 1173,1177(5th Cir)"[A]t a minimum counsel has the duty to inter- view potential witnesses and to make an independant investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case."@ "The complete failure to investigate potentially corroborating witnessesi;.can hardly be considered a tactial decision." ?

Sullivan'v;Fairman,SiQ F;Zd 138251391(7th Cir. 1987)Lr In counsels affidavit? he offers no reason for his failure to investigated only mentions what May testified to, that he never testified to living around.Applicant;,Applicants_claims.involve` pre-trial investigations. Counsel gives no reasoning for_thiss "[A]n attorney must engage in~a reasonable amount of prevtrial investigation and at 'a.minimu;..interview potential witnesses' and make-an independant investigation of the facts and circun- stances in the case." Bryant v. Scott,28 F.3d 1411,1420(5th.€ir» 1994)(quoting Nealy v. Cabana,764'F.2d 1173,1177(5th:0ir. 1985).

State argues that if Leachs performance was somehow deficient for failing to discover what Applicant claims he should have, Applicant cannot show that this error was so serious that there exist a reasonable probability that the proceedings would have `been different. l Applicant fails to see how counsels failure to investigate the States potential witnesses could not have effected the outcome of the trial. State used May in an attempt to corroborate accomplice witness.testimony.'They argued that Applicant was boasting, that' he admitted to May, then in its closing arguments; reiterated_~ his:false testimony in its closing argumentsl Mast false testimony also had an effect on Applicants direct review; The only other testimony was from accomplice witnesses, and a conviction cannot be obtained on their testimony. T.C.CrP;art,38.14.

Counsel states-in his affidavit that had Applicant wanted to refute the false.testimony§ he could have done so; but fails to mention he strongly advised Applicant to not to take the stand, for the State could bring up any alleged bad acts, whether true or not, if he did.(RR vol 12 6), Applicant Should not be forced to forfeit his right to remain silent in order to refute any of the States?witnesses, especially ones that counsel has a duty to investigate, but failed to do so;' Applicant prays this Court Grant relief 6.

GROUND 3.

State contends that Applicants claim of.Ineffective Assistance of counsel for failure to investigate States witness Marcela McKinney,'is:without“merit; APPLICANT'S REPLY; Again, State claims Applicant has submitted no evidence in support of his claims. Applicant has tried.at any and all times` to request a hearing? but has been denied. IE-the.trial courts won't give Applicant a hearing so that he can properly establish a record, it is no fault of his. He is doing the best he can to show the court what he says is true.

State contends that Applicant should forfiet his right to remain silent, in order to refute the testimony of one of its witnesses.

Applicant maintains that he should not have to forfiet any of his rights in order to refute any of the States witnesses.

Counsel again does not offer any explanation in his affidavit as to why he failed to investigate States witness Marcela`McKinny but does state that Applicant could have waived his right to' remain silent to refute her testimony; even though.he strongly advised against doing so.(RR vol 12 6). Applicant should not have to waive any/of.his Constitutional rights because counsel failed to perform his duty, to investigate States witnesses.

Code v. Montgomery,799 F;Zd 1481,1483(11 th Cir. 1986);Nealy v. Cabana,764`F¢2d 1173,1177(5th Cir;1985);Sullivan v. Fairman, F.Zd_1382,l391(7th Cir;1987);Bryant v. Scott,28 F.3d 1411,1420 (5th»cir;1994).' ` ' `State claims there was no other eyewitnesses to Applicants

confrontation with'McKinney, that is false, Had counsel done an investigation5_he~dould have found that it was not»McKinneyfwho claimed she-was in directicontrol of Applicant, but her direct supervisor Cpl. Wilson. Applicant wasn't allowed out of the cell until someone was there with cuffs and shackles; and McKinney was in the picket at all times, the confrontation happend infront of, Cpl.Wilson;_he just told Applicant to ignore here She has a history of doing.this, as §he testified to (RR vol 11 260,261); Again, counsel offers no reasoning in his affidavit as to why 'he.failed to investigate the States witnesses. bb Applicant prays this Court GRANT.relief.

GROUND 4, States contention that-Applicants* claim of lneffective Assistance on counsel for failure to object to the States use of his tattoo's is without merit.

APPLICANTPS REPLY.

Applicant contends counsel should have objected to the admittance of his tattoo's, specifically, States exhibit Noz82; a picture of_ "Lightning bolts" on his neck. State had already~submitted~other- pictures, namely of Applicants.“patch"'and it was never denied that he was a member of the Aryan Circle; so the only reason the State used the "bolts" was to inflame the minds and passions of the jury; as seven out of twelve, plus the alterane jurors were hispanic. There is nothing that suggest anything in'the', picture that has to do with anything other then Applicants beliefs.

No lettering, no numbering,~nothing..States_"expert.witness" on Gangs, Billy Bloom, even testified that their meaning was in a 8.

"further belief in'national'socialisim"'and were.”nazi Germany Waffen SS";(RR vol 10 193). lt is Applicants contention,ithe State used them to make.Applicant look like a "raging racist" as if race was apart of the issue, when in fact, noone knew who was who, much less their race. lt was done in contention;tojMay's false~testimony,_"that'bitchass mexican got.what he deserved", which was never stated by Applicanti They were posted on a wide screen so the jury was.sure to see them. lt was materialy'as'it more.likely-thenfnotyiinvoked the passion§ and emotions of the hispanic jurors. l Applicant prays this'Gourt Grant relief GROUND 5§"_ State contends Applicant's claim of Ineffective Assistance of counsel for failure to request an accomplice by law instruction on both Chunn and Griffin is without'merit} APPLICANT{S REPLY, State argues that.€hunn just ”rode along", that he was in no way culpable;_Applicant disagrees. Counsel should have requested an accomplice by law instruction, due to both Chunn and Griffins own testimony. Even the Appellate Court-Eastland found that Chunn, was "some evidence that Chunn.may have committed an act to promote the commission of the offense."_See,Haynes v.State,2013 Tex.App.LEXis-7232(Tex.App.Eastland June 13,2013 pét;ref'd).

Chunn was told to go home by Kevin Jackson(RRvolll 104-05) and he refused, He knew all in the car with him was Aryan Circle (RR vol 11 200) admitted he got out of the:car when they got to Hughes(RR vol 11 203),.he was a willing participant.from_the 9.

start. He had more then a culpable state, and the only reason he nor Griffin was chargedy was per.detective D;Bass,~they were not believed to be Aryan Circle (RR vol 10 27). Griffin testified that he was in fact a member of the Aryan Circle on the.night of the offense (RR vol 11 185) and that he was all for taking care- of business(RR vol 11 190-91), so much for.det;Bass's theory, the Same could be said for Chunn; but because he didn“t admit it? He was not some innocent Person as the'State-contends; and counsel should have requested the instruction by law on both Ghunn and Griffin..

Hannah Fierros(RR vol 11 51) testified that.everyone-knew that they were going to the Barina residence to retaliate for what had happend to her and Scott earlier that night; A witness is culpable as a party to the offense in which the defendant was charged if he acted "with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense.”Tex.Penal Code ANN § 7.02(a)(2)(West~2011) A person acts intentionally, or with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result, Tex.Penal Code §6.03(a). 9 Awdn§§ssunusasamarumlkeiscdtkzlbazuexflnwaaniwewdn§sUBtmuy isvimeih/de<wmis.Bdbnaaoawkikmcznbeba§donanaanqidmkiu£dm;y,de asdmxwwnstbecmxdmnmedbyinkpadateaikn&auningtocamamtheaoisalu)de cdmele<&deof(rmLBchNlamL&LM(ZXB)Anammqikeis:Kmexevhotadjcga&£ ' whhtheddsmhm:bime¢irdg¢mziurthecomi§na1dfacrmeaniaxswhhthereiiad odpddenemalsune. . ,'¢’i? ln the Appellate Courts memorandum opinions "Appellant neither asked the trial court to instruct the jury that Chunn was an accomplice as a matter of law nor objected to the submission of 10.

the issue to the jury"§Haynes_v. State,2013 Tex»App;LEXlS 7232 (Tex.App¢Eastland‘June'13,2013 pet.ref'd).

Chunn and Griffin are both accomplices by law, both could have been charged, and their own testimony shows this, so counsel should have requested the instruction by law, or atleast objected to the charge given to_the jury.

Applicant prays this Gourt Grant relief y GROUND el State contends Applicants claim of lneffective-Assistance on counsel for failure to request a limiting instruction on May's purported threat is without merit. l APPLICA-NT" sr R.EPLY: Applicant maintains that counsel should have requested a limited instruction on May's purported threat, after his objection was overruled.(RR vol 11 236) With a limited instruction specific to the alleged threatr;a jury would have to have found it "beyond a reasonable doubt" before they could consider'it, The only evidence of this alleged threat was from May himself; He claimed of.a threat in his letter to the State as well, but it wasn't allowed¢ Ex parte Varelas,45 SWBd'627,631-32(T.C.A. 2001)"defendant is entitled to a limited instruction that the jury only consider it if it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt." nw .The courts instruction was vague, it was not specific to May's alleged threat, State and counsel both agree to that fact;lj Counsel states in his affidavit that there was no reason to reemphasize what May had stated in his testimony with respect to 11.

to the threat} Surely’counsel did not think the State would not reiterate.the purported threat in its closing arguments? (RR vol 13 34)"even during tee trial; this defendant threatend Micah May with his life. During the trial;.Who do you need to threaten if you didn't do anything wrong?".

Counsel was denied a continuance after his objection to the threat was overruled) the least he could do was request a limited instruction, that was the last thing the jury heard before retiring to deliberate,' 'who do you need to threaten if you didn' t do nothing wrong" .lmplying that Applicant was guilt.y!

A limited instruction would have made alot of difference in both the trial outcome and in direct review, state clearly used it to influence the jury‘s opinions l Applicant prays this Court GRANT relief GROUND 7.

State contends Applicants claim of lneffective Assistance on Appellate counsells failure to raise issue of Chunn anderiffin as accomplices by law is without merit. v _APPLICANT'S'REPLY ln the Appellant Courts Memorandum Opinion in this case,_ Haynes v..State,ZOl$)Tex.App.LEXlS 7232(Tex.App.Eastland June 13,2013 pet;ref'd) VAppellant neither asked the trial court to` instruct the jury that Chunn was an accomplice as a matter of law nor objected to the submission of the issue to the jury.

Moreover, appellant does not argue on appeal that such an instruction should have been given." it also statedlthat@there was some evidence,however,that'Chunn may have committed an_act 12.

to promote the.commission'of#the offense." Clearly, Chunns own testimony, he was more then an innocent bystander as the State -tries,to-claim. ln Appellate counsels affidavit5 he seems to feel that§ for some reason; he could not raise the issuey simply because trial counsel did not object to it; but the Appellate Court seems to think that not only could it be raised, but that it should have -been raised; as there is evidence in the record that Chunn1 may have committed an act to promote the commission of the offense" Regardless of what is in the record, court will not, sua sponte raise any issue on the behalf of either party,.it”is-up to the party who is arguing to raise itt Because Gounsel did not raise.it5 the Courts denied relief, in part because the issue'wasnit‘raised, and so it left the door open for one to believe that he was not an accopmlice,by.law!

Awun§s'sexamsasanamnqlmeiscdtkalbaam£<flnw aquike` wun§st§dmxyisvuwaytheamds. &Nxeacawutwncm " betaXdcnanaannrD%;usmmxy, dxausumawwnstbeomrimmud emdanetanngin<xnnxiiheaxm&diwthecrme le<.Gxe(Iin.Rmc.ANlmi.lB.]A ' ' An accomplice is someone who participates with the defendant before,during,or after the commission of a crime and acts with the required culpable mental state¢See dury vt Statej255_8W3d 491,498(Tex.Crim.App¢2007). Courts held in Cocke v. State, 201 SW3d 744(T.C.A. 2006)`that a person did not have to be charged to be an accomplice, only that they could'have, is sufficient enough.

Applicant prays this Court GRANT relief 13. __ GROUND 8 State contends Applicant’s claim of lneffective Assistance on appellate counsel for failure to raise Prosecutional Misconduct for using the false testimony of States witness Micah May is ' without merit.

APPLICANT'S REPLY Applicant maintains counsel should have raised Prosecutional Misconduct;.on'the‘States use of the false testimony of Micah May. Applicant told counsel that'MayFs testimony was-false, that he had never had a conversation with May9 didnit know who he was until he was on the States witness list. lnstead, he groups May in his argument on accomplice testimony and now contends that, both Applicant and the Appellate Court, "mischaracterized" his argument. lf counsel did not want to raise a claim of Prosecutional Misconduct, nor an lneffective of Assistance claim on trial counsel for a failure to investigate, as he states in his affidavit it is hard to do so, he should have atleast raised May under Texas Code of Criminal Proceedure ANN.art.38.075 Corroboration of Certain Testimony Required(ZOlO), as this was in the courts instructions. 7 ` lnstead, in his arguments, it was percieved by the Appellate Court, Applicant as well, that he was arguimg that May was an accomplice, and the Court held he was not, and that his testimony could be considered§ and denied relief. lt is Applicant who is being punished'for his errors, not counsel!.lf counsel would have raised a.Prosecutional Misconduct, a constitutional violation, 14.

then the courts would have,to review it under the Chapman v,' California,386 U.S. 18,87 S¢Ct.824 (1967) harm analysis. When an applicant has shown a constitutional error, a state court onz Direct Review must apply the more strigenthHAPM N harmless error standard under which the verdict must be overturned unless the error is shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." 'See Brecht, 507 U;S.at 629-30,636»(discussing~Chapman v. California, 386 U\S.18, 87 S;Ct¢824(1967);see also, Fry v. Pike, u.s.112-116, 127 s;ct,2331(2007).

Because counsel feels that something is "extremely difficult" as he stated in his affidavit§.then he should not have to raise’ a issue? Alot of cases, even the opinion of App.Ct.-Eastland, Seems to believe that those issues~cas and should be raised on Direct Review¢ Again, it is not counsel who suffers, it is Applicant, who was denied relief from a life sentence for a crime he did not commitl Counsel states "it was not found in the record" surely he doesn't expect the State to admit it violated Applicant's Fourteenth Amendment‘Due Process, right after it done so?

Applicant prays this Court GRANT relief CONCLUSIONS 'Ground ll State.violated'Applicant’s Due Process, a right protected by the US Const.Amend;lé, Tex;Const; l§§10,19, by procuring a conviction through the use of false testiomony from States witness'Micah:MayL Grounds 2,3L Counsel offers no explanation for his failure to

investigate States.witnesses-pre trial'investigation*, only 15. suggest that Applicant should have waived his right to remain silentzUS Const;Amend.S, to refute the testimony of the States witnesses, against counsels strong advice against doing sol Ground 4. Counsel suggests that Applicant should forfeited his right to remain silent, US Const.AmendiS, in order to refute State's introduction of'the.Vlightning bolts" when counsel Strongly advised Applicant not to do so; l Ground 5.Counsel.claims Applicant ignores the fact the Court gave an accomplice instruction on Chunn and Griffin, that is not Applicantks claim. Counsel.states he could find no reference in the record, that would suggest requesting_an instruction;,lt is counsel who ignores the testimony of both Chunn and Griffin, that _they had an active role in "promoting the commission of'the offense"; 1 Ground 6. Gounsel states "there was simply no reason to re- emphasize what May had stated with respect to the threat;" His failure to request a limiting instruction3 specific to the threat, allowed the jury, as well as the Appellate;Court; to consider it;'i rather then having to "find it beyond a reasonable doubt". Thev only evidence of a threat was from May himself! n Ground 7;.Appellant counsel is in the opinion that he could a not raise the issue of the accomplice by law instruction on both Chunn and Griffin on Direct Review, but the Appellate:éourt has suggested otherwise. lt even found that there was "some.evidence" that Chunn may have commited an act to "promote the commission of the Offense"; He did§.and should have been listed as ann accomplice by law., 16.

Ground 8. Appellate counsel again, is in the opinion that he could not raise any claims not "found in the record" even though he was aware that his testimony was false, and Applicant told him he: has never spoke to May; lt is Applicant who.suffers§ not counsel.

He was denied relief for a crime he did not commit3 due to the States use of May's false testimony. ii n The trial court should be an independent arbiter in these matters, but in its Findings of Facts and Recomendations in this casey it is a mere reiteration of the States proposed findings. lt foundl that Applicant provided no evidence to support his.claimsy but it was the trial court who refused to grant Applicant.a hearing so.that he could establish the record, prove his claims, that will entitle him to relief!

Applicant has no access to;a copier, is proceeding pro se, he cannot afford to hire counsel;'He's done the best to his abilities to show the Court what he claims is indeed the truth. A hearing would have allowed him to do this. x When an applicant files an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the record can be supplemented by the trial.court gathering facts. This»"provides an opportunity for a dedicated hearing to consider the facts,circumstances, and rationale behind counselis actions at that juncture of trial."`lhompson v. State,9 SWBd‘808,814(T»G.A. 1999);"Record is generally best developed in. the context of a.hearing held in relation to an application for writ of habeas corpus".Ex parte Menchaca9854 SWZd*128;130(T.C.A. 1993). *°' The trial.court's findings are not automatically binding upon the Court of Criminal Appeals, although it usually accepts the findings, if supported by the record;Ex parte Garcia,353:SW3d `785(T.c.A 2011). ' 1 l Applicant.was not afforded the opportunity to establish the record to prove his allegations; no hearing was given.

17.

The Court of Criminal'Appeals may exercise its authority to make lcontrary or alternative findings and conclusions when independant review of the record reveals that the trial judgeszfindings and conclusions on a post-conviction application for habeas corpus relief were not:supported by the record.Ex parte Chabot,300 SW3d 768(T.C.A;2009).

Given the opportunity to have a hearing, Applicant will be able to show the court what he claims is in fact true, and will entitle him to relief. Trial counsel gave no reasons for his failure te do a pre~trial investigation on states'witnesses; Appellate: counsel is in the opinion that nothing outside the record can be raised on Direct review, even constitutional violations.

PR-AYERv Applicant prays this Court Grant relief sought; or in the‘ alternitave; order the trial court to hold a hearing; appoint counsel for the purpose of the hearing, so that:Applicant can fully establish the record to support his claims, that will entitle him to relief of his conviction.

Respectfully Submitted, /x/. .

Billy Wayne Haynes #1723231 Clements H/S 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, Texas 79107 18.

cERTIFIcATE 0F sERVIcE l certify that on this 8th day of July,2015; a true and' correct copy of_Applicanth Reply to State's_Response and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, was mailed to: . ~ R.N.(Bobby) Bland ` Ector County District Attorney_ Ector County Courthouse N. Grant RM:305 Odessa, Texas~79761 l '» ,'//1 Billy Wayne Haynes #1723231 Clements H/S 9601.Spur.591 Amarillo, lexas 79107 19.