in the air to be handcuffed, signifying that he knew that he had said something wrong. And when given the opportunity to present testimony to Judge Lee in the DWI matter after being called- as a witness by his Own defense counsel, Brock refused. Based on the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence and testimony, we conclude that a reasonable person could interpret' the statemen Brock' made to Judge Lee as a threat to harm Judge Lee by an unlawful act, thoqgh it was more of an implied or veiled threat. See Manemann, 878 S.W.2d at 337-38 (“That a threat is subtle does not make it less of a threat .... Alleged threats should be considered in light of their entire factual context, including the surrounding events and the reaction of the listeners.”); Meyer, 366 S.W.3d at 731-32 (<HOLDING>); see also Austin v. State, No. 10-12-00066-CR,
holding that the evidence supporting appellants conviction is sufficient to demonstrate that he threatened a judge when he stated the following in a letter now the chips will fall where they will  proceed further at your own personal risk holding that because at sentencing the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable the argument he seeks to make was waived holding that case was justiciable when at least some of the appellants have a sufficient personal stake  in its adjudication holding that the petitioner in that case could not invoke the protections provided by miranda  including the right to counsel because he was not in custody at the time he stated t think i need a lawyer  holding the record must demonstrate that the alj considered all of the evidence and the alj must discuss  the evidence supporting his decision  the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon and significantly probative evidence he rejects