submits an application [to cure]” is superfluous. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code § 103.051(e); see also Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 271 S.W.3d 238, 256 (Tex.2008) (“The Court must not interpret the statute in a manner that renders any part of the statute meaningless or superfluous.”). Moreover, the Legislature's creation of a right to review under expressly defined circumstances evidences a legislative expectation that the same right to review is not available when those circumstances are not present. See PPG Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Houston Ctrs. Partners Ltd. P’ship, 146 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex.2004) (“When the Legislature includes a right or remedy in one part of a code but omits (emphasis added); Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Chem. Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d 392, 404-05 (Tex.2009) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); see also Helena Chem. Co. v.
holding that magistrate had substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where affidavit which recited information received from anonymous tip from informer in february 2007 regarding narcotic activity on unspecified date included several details about defendant and residence that were later confirmed officer found residue that fieldtested positive for marihuana in garbage can located on street directly in front of residence on march 1 2007 officer found marihuana stems seeds and residue in garbage can on march 5 and search warrant was issued on march 6 and executed on march 7 holding that provision in edwards aquifer authority act that declaration of historical use must be filed on or before march 11994 prohibited latefiled applications holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date holding that edwards aquifer acts cap on landowners water withdrawal was necessary to safeguard public welfare and that consideration of preexisting users water consumption before effective date of act did not render act unconstitutional holding the fourteen day provision in rule 35a is jurisdictional and reinstating defendants original sentence when defendant was originally sentenced on march 1st defendant filed a rule 35a motion on march 5th the district court held a hearing on the rule 35 motion on march 29th and resentenced defendant on april 12th