In Coleman v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 768, 772-73, 501 S.E.2d 461, 463 (1998), Coleman was charged with a drug-related felony. Through a motion for discovery under Rule 3A:11, he requested the certificate of analysis. The trial court entered a discovery order, directing that all discovery would take place at the Commonwealth's Attorney's office within ten days of trial and upon twenty-four hours notice. Coleman's counsel endorsed the discovery order "We ask for this." However, Coleman's counsel failed to arrange a meeting at the Commonwealth's Attorney's office to procure the discovery materials. The Court held that, by endorsing the discovery order without objection, Coleman had intermingled Code 19.2-187 and Rule 3A:11 and that, by failing to "conduct discovery as prescribed by the discovery order, Coleman waived any objection concerning delivery of the certificate to him." Id. at 775-76, 501 S.E.2d at 464-65. The Court held that a defendant has at least three avenues to secure a certificate of analysis: . . . (1) request it under the terms of Code 19.2-187(ii) directly from the clerk of the . . . court or from the attorney for the Commonwealth; (2) make a motion for discovery under Rule 3A:11 to the court to order the Commonwealth to permit him to inspect and copy or photograph designated documents, including scientific reports; (3) call upon the Commonwealth to produce exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). Coleman, 27 Va. App. at 773, 501 S.E.2d at 463. In Coleman, Coleman was charged with a felony offense and he made a request for the certificate of analysis through his motion for discovery under Rule 3A:11. The trial court entered a discovery order that directed all discovery would take place at the Commonwealth's Attorney's office within ten days of trial and upon twenty-four hours notice. Coleman's counsel endorsed the discovery order "We ask for this." Coleman's counsel failed to arrange a meeting at the Commonwealth's Attorney's office to procure his discovery materials. The Court held that Coleman had intermingled Code 19.2-187 and Rule 3A:11 and that, since he endorsed the discovery order without objection and failed to "conduct discovery as prescribed by the discovery order, Coleman waived any objection concerning delivery of the certificate to him." Coleman, 27 Va. App. at 775-76, 501 S.E.2d at 464-65.