was neither: aside from being incomplete, the answers themselves were woefully inadequate. We do not go into detail here, but their substantive failings added yet another straw onto the back of an already overburdened camel. First, the specific Court Order (the capitals are intentional) trumps any general rule regarding the meaning of the word “service.” The simple dictionary definition of “provide” is to “supply or make available,” Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary 1001 (11th ed. 2011); and of “produce,” to “offer to view or notice.” Id. at 991. The common-sense definition, too, suggests that putting something in the mail is not the functional equivalent of getting it to someone on a date certain. See Bush v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Maryland, 212 Md.App. 127, 137, 66 A.3d 1123 (2013) (<HOLDING>). Second, counsel’s failure to comply with the
holding that the conversion of a chapter 7 petition to a chapter 13 petition was not final until the plan itself was approved holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision holding that utility customers mailing of a petition did not constitute the filing of the petition as filing was not effectuated until the petition was received by the clerk holding that the filing of an amended petition in the same cause in which a final judgment had already been entered was like an original petition sufficient to invoke the trial courts jurisdiction holding that even where postconviction petitioner reserved the option to file an amended petition in his opening petition simply filing an amended petition is insufficient to request leave to file an amended petition a motion for leave to file an amended petition was required before it was necessary for the district judge to consider the amended petition