With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nyabwa v. Stephens, No. 12-20682, 2013 WL 3091894, at *1 (5th Cir. June 20, 2013). 4 . Although the court held the statutory subsection did not regulate speech, the opinion states: "Texas Penal Code section 21.15(b) neither limits photography because of the ideas expressed nor favors one type of photograph over another; therefore, the statute is content-neutral.” See Nyabwa, 366 S.W.3d at 725. As a result, the court seemingly agrees the statute regulates speech, that is, photography, but does it in a "content neutral” manner. See id. 5 . Although Thompson did not explicitly address the O’Brien factors in his briefing, we liberally construe his arguments as they apply to the O’Brien test. See Burnett v. Sharp, 328 S.W.3d 594, 598 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Based on this court's holding on the

A: holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
B: holding that the pleading function of a petition for modification is to reasonably inform the other side of what is to be established in support of the petition so that the opponent has a fair opportunity to defend and prepare a case
C: holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction
D: holding court must construe pleading liberally in pleaders favor and construe petition to include all claims that reasonably may be inferred from language used in petition
D.