Driver Brother 2130

[Jens Loco]

Theeasiest way is to turn on your printer, connect it to your Mac, open System Preferences > Print & Scan and press the + button. Your printer should show up automatically, and Mac OS X will install the driver for this printer.

I did look into the brother website and downloded the drivers. But when i am trying to connect the printer, it is finding for software update. After sometime it is showing a mgs saying that "can't install the software because it is not currently available from the software Update server"

Nope, no joy. I have the same problem with a Brother HL-1440. I did the procedure step-by-step, still I get the error message "can't install the software because it is not currently available from the software Update server" like before. What is going on?

I have the same problem, trying to install a Brother printer driver for the HL-2250DN on a MBP runing 10.9.1. I've tried downloading and installing the saoftware from the Brother site, have tried everything suggested above, and each time Apple tries to install the driver i get the same error message

That will reset the printing settings, and should happen immediately. You'll know if it worked because any existing printers you had previously set up will disappear from your printers list. Once the system has been reset, click on the "Add printer" button and add the printer that you're trying to add.

Some cost-cutting is in evidence on the control panel -- or rather the lack of one. Instead of the usual two-line display and four-way control pad, this printer simply has three LEDs covering general, toner and drum errors, as well as a green 'ready' light. Beneath this, there's a big, green button marked 'go' that seems to do little other than instruct the printer to produce a test sheet.

Despite its small size, the HL-2130 still manages to house a proper paper tray at the bottom that can hold up to 250 sheets of paper at a time -- more than enough for most home-office requirements. Above the main paper tray, there's a slot into which you can feed single sheets. This will primarily be used for envelopes and other irregularly shaped materials. The printed results are fed into an output tray that's formed of a cut-away in the top of the printer.

Setting this model up to work with your PC really couldn't be more straightforward. Once you've taken it out of the box and removed the protective tabs, you just take the toner cartridge out of the slot, rotate it to make sure the toner is evenly distributed in the cartridge, and then replace it. Then it's just a matter of loading up the drivers from the included installation CD and connecting the printer up to your computer using a USB lead.

The print quality of black text is very good. The printer produces dark, black characters that look very clean and crisp. Even when you enable the toner-saving mode, text still looks very strong and bold, so you can use this setting for pretty much everything bar the most important documents.

The HL-2130's graphics performance isn't quite as hot, though. While dark lines and arrows are well defined and quite sharp, the output is less impressive when it comes to grey fills. Often these look quite stippled and, in larger areas, there's noticeable banding.

The HL-2130 uses a two-part cartridge consisting of the drum and toner well. The toner part lasts for up to 1,000 pages, whereas the drum is good for 12,000 sheets. At current prices, the running cost works out at around 4.3p per page, including 0.7p for paper costs. That's quite expensive by laser printer standards. By way of comparison, the Samsung ML-1865W will set you back around 3.9p per page.

Still, the printer is reasonably fast for such a low-cost model. It took 39 seconds to print out our ten-page black and white text document, and 41 seconds to produce ten copies of our black and white graphics sheet. Our ten-page business presentation took a little longer, at 45 seconds, but even that is a perfectly acceptable speed.

The Brother HL-2130 may not offer the last word in print quality, and it's not the cheapest laser printer in the long term. But its petite design, fast print speed and low price tag all work heavily in its favour. For those with less demanding printing needs, it's definitely worth checking out.

Appellant Kimberly Van Flowers appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, greater than 4 grams but less than 200 grams. Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized based upon consent he claimed was involuntary and tainted by a previous illegal search. After a hearing, the trial court denied his motion to suppress. Appellant thereafter pleaded guilty and was placed on ten years= deferred adjudication community supervision. The trial court has certified that it granted permission to appeal and that Appellant has the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We affirm.

In the early morning hours of February 22, 2003, a Rhome police unit made a traffic stop of a car driven by Appellant=s girlfriend, Michelle Wallace. Because Michelle had outstanding warrants, the officer on the scene arrested her. Appellant stopped on the opposite shoulder of the road and was watching the traffic stop, so the Rhome officer called for backup. Officers Lanier and Stack of the Wise County Sheriff=s Department responded. Michelle=s brother, Robert, was a passenger in the car with Michelle. Because Robert=s driver=s license was suspended or expired, Officer Lanier gave him a ride to Appellant=s house. It was disputed whether the idea to go to Appellant=s house was that of Officer Lanier or Robert.

Officer Lanier knew Appellant and knew that Appellant had a felony warrant out of Parker County for his arrest. He acknowledged that the purpose of his going to Appellant=s house was to arrest him. When Officer Lanier arrived with Robert, Appellant was outside on his porch. Officer Lanier told Appellant he was under arrest, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of the squad car. Robert went inside Appellant=s house.

The facts are in dispute as to the events that followed. Officer Lanier asked Appellant if he wanted Robert to stay in the house or leave, and Appellant responded that Robert could stay, especially since he was Appellant=s future brother-in-law. According to Officer Lanier, Appellant asked him to tell Robert to lock the house if he left and that the keys were on the TV. Officer Lanier testified he then went back to the front door with Appellant=s approval to explain to Robert to lock the house if he left.

Officer Lanier recalled that the night was cool, but that Robert had left the front door open when he went in and only the screen door was closed. Once on the front porch, Officer Lanier said, he looked through the screen, saw a glass pipe and some razor blades in clear view on a coffee table beside the couch, and noticed a strong smell he believed to be ether associated with a Ameth house,@ based upon his training and experience in the field. Officer Lanier testified he did not enter the house at that time.

Appellant denied asking Officer Lanier to speak to Robert, and testified there was no reason for Officer Lanier to say anything to Robert. Both Appellant and Robert testified contrary to Officer Lanier that the front door and the screen door were closed when Officer Lanier returned to the front porch. According to both Appellant and Robert, Officer Lanier opened the front door and walked in without knocking or asking permission to enter. Robert testified he had closed the door when he entered and was lying on the couch when Officer Lanier walked in, and that Officer Lanier scanned the room with a flashlight and discovered the pipe in a wicker basket, not on the coffee table.

Officer Lanier testified that, after seeing the pipe and razor blades on the table and noticing the smell of ether, he returned to the squad car and called Detective Hanks for assistance. With Detective Hanks present, Officer Lanier told Appellant about the items he had seen along with the smell. Officer Lanier and Detective Hanks then asked Appellant to give written consent to search the house, and it was undisputed that he agreed to do so. The officers uncuffed Appellant and led him to the front of the squad car. Appellant conceded that Officer Hanks gave him the Miranda[2] warnings and read him the consent form, which Appellant then signed. Officer Lanier testified Appellant stated he wanted to cooperate and make it easier on himself, and, knowing that Appellant was a former police officer, Officer Lanier believed Appellant understood he could refuse. The investigation was then turned over to the narcotics task force, which conducted a search and seized the contraband made the basis of the indictment and the subject of the motion to suppress.

Appellant=s sole point, as framed by his brief, is that the trial court erred in ruling that his consent to the search and seizure was not tainted by Officer Lanier=s prior illegal entry into the house.

It is the duty of the trial court to resolve conflicts in the testimony at a suppression hearing. Hawkins v. State, 853 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 1993, no pet.). When the trial court does not make express findings of fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court=s ruling and assume the trial court made implicit findings of fact supporting its ruling, if such findings are supported by the record. Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 327-28.

Appellant cites Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) arguing that we should use a single de novo standard of review because it cannot be determined from the record what the trial court=s implicit findings of fact are. Peterson held that A[a]lthough reviewing courts should also grant deference to >implicit factual= findings that support the trial court=s ultimate ruling, they cannot do so if they are unable to determine from the record what the trial court=s implied factual findings are.@ Id. at 819. Here, however, the trial court could have implicitly made one of two factual findings: either Officer Lanier=s original discovery of the evidence did not constitute a Asearch@ in the legal sense, and thus there was nothing to taint Appellant=s consent; or Officer Lanier=s initial discovery of evidence resulted from an illegal search, but that the search did not taint Appellant=s consent. The determination of either fact required the trial court to resolve conflicts in the testimony by evaluating the credibility and demeanor of witnesses, because the testimony of Officers Lanier and Hanks differed markedly from that of Appellant and Robert. Therefore, we conclude that the bifurcated standard of review applies. And if the trial court=s decision is correct on any theory of the law applicable to the case, the decision must be affirmed. Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 856.

3a8082e126