May 10


GEORGIA:

Defense calls no witnesses in mass murder trial; Jury expected to begin deliberations Friday


Jurors are scheduled to begin deliberations today in a 2004 mass murder case in which the alleged triggerman is facing 5 murder counts.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys wrapped up on the presentation of evidence in the trial of Alexander Woods III about lunchtime on Thursday. The defense called no witnesses.

Woods, 34, is accused of shooting the four members of a Colquitt County family and their housekeeper on Nov. 8, 2004, on Highway 37 east of Moultrie. Those killed were Betty Faye Watts, 50; Katrina Darlene Watts "Tina" Resendez, 29; Juan Carlos Resendez, 3; Liliana Alegria Aguilar, 30; and 24-year-old Jaime Cruze Resendez.

2 1/2 days of testimony included law enforcement officials and people who know Woods or another man implicated in the murders and co-defendant Jerry Johnny Thompson. Woods' attorneys did not call any witnesses. Woods declined to take the stand, which would have put him in the position of having to answer questions from the prosecution. Judges instruct jurors not to consider a defendant's choice not to testify in determining guilt.

Senior Superior Court Judge Tracy Moulton Jr. outlined a Friday schedule of closing arguments, after which jurors will be given instructions and sent to the jury room to discuss the case.

Thompson, who has pleaded guilty to 5 counts of murder, described in testimony trips to Texas with Jaime Resendez to bring back marijuana. He said that Woods rode with Anthony Davis to the Resendez's house on the day of the murders in Davis' green Ford Expedition.

After arming Woods and Davis with protective vests, an AK-47 rifle and 9 mm handgun, Thompson said, he led them to the residence and continued driving. Davis and Woods were supposed to get Jaime Resendez to contact a marijuana supplier in Texas, to whom Resendez owed $198,000.

The case hinges heavily on Thompson's testimony. Woods' attorneys already have noted contradicting statements given to law enforcement by Thompson over the years.

Davis was found dead on Jan. 16, 2005, in southern Lowndes County, with multiple gunshot wounds and his body badly burned, a Lowndes County Sheriff's Office investigator told jurors on Thursday.

Thompson's testimony was that Davis, whom he and other marijuana dealers used to collect debts, summoned him to return to the Resendez residence, and when he went inside Jaime was dead and Woods was looking to find cash inside the house.

Law enforcement officers told the jury that the house was ransacked, but that there was no forced entry into the house that family members said was always locked. Finding the house unlocked alerted 2 of Tina Resendez's sons, then 7 and 8, that something was wrong when they first arrived home from school and then found the bodies of their mother and stepfather in the hallway inside.

Thompson was the 1st of 3 defendants charged in the murders, in 2006, with prosecutors at one time seeking the death penalty against the Nashville, Ga., man. During a news conference announcing Thompson's arrest, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said that Jaime Resendez was the only one in the family involved with the drug trade and the others were innocent victims.

Thompson avoided a trial and possible death sentence by pleading guilty to 5 counts of murder in November 2011.

Thompson has been sentenced to a life sentence in 1 of those cases and is scheduled to be sentenced on the other 4 as early as next week. He agreed to testify at Woods??? trial when he entered the guilty plea.

A 3rd defendant, Wilma Ann Yvonne Stover, 26, also of Nashville, also was charged with 5 counts of murder in the case and also testified in Woods' trial on Tuesday. No trial has been set for Stover.

Both she and Thompson testified that she waited outside in Thompson's truck and left when he used a hand-held radio to tell her to leave the scene.

Thompson in October 2010 picked Woods out of a lineup in Lowndes County that included 5 other men, while Stover, who said she only saw him from a distance, picked a different man out of the same group, telling investigators she would rate the certainty of her selection at 50 %.

(source: Moultrie Observer)






FLORIDA:

Florida Bar wants former Broward judge disbarred


Former Broward Circuit Judge Ana Gardiner should be disbarred, not just suspended, for her misconduct during a capital murder trial in 2007, the Florida Bar argued in a brief filed to the state Supreme Court this week.

The Bar had previously found that Gardiner, who served as a judge from 1999 until her resignation in 2010, had engaged in an improper "personal and emotional relationship" with then-Assistant State Attorney Howard Scheinberg starting in March 2007, while Scheinberg was prosecuting Omar Loureiro on a murder charge.

Loureiro was convicted and sentenced to death, but his lawyer later learned that Gardiner and Scheinberg had exchanged 949 cellphone calls and 471 text messages while the trial was going on. Loureiro was given a new trial, convicted again, and sentenced to life in prison.

Gardiner resigned, vowing never to run for another judgeship, while the Judicial Qualifications Commission was reviewing the misconduct allegations.

A judicial referee who reviewed the case issued a report in January recommending a 1-year suspension of Gardiner's law license, determining that Gardiner's actions were dishonest and deceitful.

(source: Sun-Sentinel)

*********************

Speeding Up Execution Bill Gets Calls for Veto


Florida has averaged 3 point 2 executions a year since the death penalty was reinstated in 1979. 3 people have already died by lethal injection this year and 2 more executions are pending before the middle of June. Legislation on the Governor's desk is designed to speed up executions even more, but it may have the opposite effect.

Executions are pending for 2 man between now and June 12. Their executions will bring the year's total to 5. Ranking 2013, number 3 in executions since Florida resumed using the death penalty in 1979.

But lawmakers want an even quicker pace. Legislation on the Governor's desk seeks to speed up executions. It also reverses a decision made a decade ago that was intended to speed up the process; but didn't. Former Supreme Court Justice Raul Cantero says the new changes are still deficient.

"What I'm disappointed in is that the legislature also did not reform the death penalty process to provide for some kind of unanimity in the death penalty recommendation process as every other state has." says Raul Cantero, Former Supreme Court Justice.

The bill attempts to tell the Governor when he has to sign death warrants, but experts say that's most likely a violation of separation of powers.

Mark Schlackman from the Center for the Advancement of Human Rights, says the Governor, could today, sign up to a hundred warrants. "Florida's process of issuing death warrants is unconstitutionally vague." says Schlackman.

Florida leads the nation with 24 death row exonerations. The ACLU says speeding up executions would be a mistake. "And it makes almost certain that Florida is going to execute an innocent person." says Howard Simon, ACLU.

The ACLU also says signing the legislation would tie this and future Governor's hands in signing death warrants, which they say is reason enough for a veto.

(source: WCTV)

*****************************

High court skeptical over Xbox appeal


Nearly 9 years after the grisly discovery of six bodies in a central Florida home, an attorney for one of the convicted murderers argued Thursday that a mistrial should have been sought in the case and that his client had been wrongly portrayed as the ringleader.

The trial was held in St. Johns County because of pre-trial publicity in Volusia County, and attracted national attention.

Christopher Anderson, an appellate attorney for death row inmate Troy Victorino, told the Florida Supreme Court that another defendant in what became known as the "Xbox murders" refused to be cross-examined while testifying during the trial. Anderson contended that Victorino's trial attorneys improperly failed to seek a mistrial when that refusal took place.

Anderson said the lack of cross-examination helped lead to the conclusion that his client was the ringleader in the killings in a Deltona home - a notion that Anderson disputed. Victorino and 3 other men were convicted in the case, which involved the victims being beaten with baseball bats.

"He was framed as the ringleader, and that's what got him the death penalty," Anderson said.

But Senior Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Nunnelley offered another explanation for the death sentence: He said Victorino "deserved it." Nunnelley said Victorino wanted to retrieve some belongings from the home, including an Xbox video game system, and kicked in the door, shattering the dead-bolt lock.

At least some of the justices also appeared skeptical of Anderson's arguments, which centered on the refusal by defendant Robert Cannon to be cross-examined. Cannon had negotiated a plea agreement in which he was a witness for the state.

Anderson said Cannon claimed the 6-foot-7 Victorino had bullied him into taking part in the bludgeoning deaths, a claim that the appellate attorney described as "nonsense." But Justice Charles Canady appeared to flatly reject that argument.

"He was afraid of him - and apparently with quite good reason," Canady said.

The August 2004 murders drew national attention, at least in part because of their gruesome nature and the number of victims. Victorino, now 36, has been depicted as the ringleader since the time of the killings and was convicted on 6 counts of 1st-degree murder, along with other charges.

In addition to Victorino, defendant Jerone Hunter, now 26, was sentenced to death. Cannon and Michael Salas, both 27, received life sentences. The victims, who were discovered in various rooms of the blood-stained house, were Erin Belanger, Roberto Gonzalez, Michelle Nathan, Anthony Vega, Jonathon Gleason and Francisco Ayo-Roman.

The Supreme Court in 2009 upheld Victorino's convictions and death sentence in what is known as a "direct" appeal. But the arguments Thursday were more narrowly tailored to arguments that he had received ineffective legal representation.

If the appeal is successful, Anderson said Victorino could receive a new trial or a new sentencing hearing. It typically takes justices months to issue rulings.

Anderson said, for example, the portrayal of Victorino as a ringleader could have influenced the decision of jurors to call for the death penalty.

"It's really critical to the life versus death decision, in particular," Anderson said.

At one point, however, Justice Peggy Quince scoffed at the suggestion that Victorino might have only gone to the Deltona home with the intent to "rough people up" and get belongings he thought were there.

"So he went in to rough up people with a baseball bat?" she asked.

(source: Associated Press)






MISSISSIPPI:

A Stay of Execution and a Whole Lot More


For Justice Michael Randolph of the Mississippi Supreme Court, a legal opinion wasn't just a place to explain why his 8 colleagues were mistaken in staying an execution - it was a forum to vent wide-ranging criticism of the U.S. Justice Department.

The court voted 8-1 on Tuesday to stay the day's scheduled execution of Willie Jerome Manning, following acknowledgments by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of errors in agents' testimony that helped convict Mr. Manning in 1994 of murdering 2 college students.

The FBI, citing time constraints, reevaluated the evidence against Mr. Manning with assistance from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project, both of which are critical of the death penalty.

Judge Randolph objected to that partnership, and then, with a single bullet, managed to hit the Justice Department's conduct in the bungled Fast and Furious gun-trafficking sting and its policies in domestic terrorism cases.

"Although the connectivity and expediency by which this review was accomplished is mind boggling," Justice Randolph wrote, "I should not be surprised, given that the families of the clandestine 'Fast and Furious' gun running operation can't get the Department of Justice to identify the decision makers (whose actions resulted in the death of a border agent and many others) after years of inquiry, and that this is the same Department of Justice that enforces Miranda warnings to foreign enemy combatants."

The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment on Judge Randolph's non sequitur. The court's majority also held its tongue, simply stating that "after due consideration," the motion to stay the execution was granted, "pending further Order of this Court."

Justice Randolph hinted, however, that me might soon have more to say on the topic of the Justice Department's inadequacies, as he sees them.

"There exists a host of other legal and factual issues, but time allocated to write is so compressed due to last minute filings, and I shall more fully address these deficiencies when the opportunity presents itself."

(source: Wall Street Journal)



WASHINGTON:

High court reviews exclusion of death penalty in 2007 Carnation killings; The oral arguments before the Supreme Court centered on whether a lower-court judge was right when he ruled in January that prosecutors couldn't seek the death penalty against the defendants charged with aggravated 1st-degree murder in the slayings of 6 family members.


A King County judge overstepped his bounds when he ruled that prosecutors can't seek the death penalty against the 2 people accused of killing a family of 6 on Christmas Eve 2007 in Carnation, the state Supreme Court was told Thursday.

King County Senior Deputy Prosecutor James Whisman argued that under the state's death-penalty statute, "discretion is placed with the prosecutor" to decide whether to seek capital punishment.

But in ruling out the death penalty, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell wasn't privy to all of the information King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg considered in deciding to seek the death penalty, Whisman said.

"The court ruled the prosecutor can't consider the strength of the evidence ... but he wasn't clear on what he meant by 'strength of the evidence,'" Whisman told the 9-member panel. Ramsdell did not have access to mitigation information on both defendants that was submitted by their defense attorneys, and the judge had previously denied a defense motion to compel Satterberg to spell out "which factors in the mitigation package he found persuasive and which ones" he didn't, Whisman said.

But defense attorney Kathryn Ross, who represented defendants Michele Anderson and her former boyfriend, Joseph McEnroe, before the Supreme Court, said Satterberg's decision to seek the death penalty was based only on the evidence and not on the mitigation evidence submitted by the defense. Ross argued that the state's death-penalty statute is unique in that prosecutors are directed to impose it only if there isn't sufficient evidence of mitigating factors to merit leniency.

"I guess that's why we're here - to decide how to read that statute. Is mitigation the only thing they consider" in deciding to seek the death penalty, said Chief Justice Barbara Madsen.

Trial judge's decision

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court centered on whether Ramsdell was right when he ruled in January that prosecutors couldn't seek the death penalty against Anderson and McEnroe, who are each charged with aggravated 1st-degree murder in the shooting deaths of 6 members of Anderson's family: her parents, brother, sister-in-law and the younger couple's 2 preschool-aged children.

The judge handed down his ruling Jan. 31 after 3,000 jury subpoenas had been mailed out on the eve of McEnroe's trial.

Ramsdell ruled that while Satterberg properly considered the "facts and circumstances" of the crimes, the prosecutor erroneously considered the strength of the state's evidence against Anderson and McEnroe in deciding whether to seek the death penalty.

He said the prosecutor should only have weighed whether there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant leniency if convicted - which in the case of aggravated 1st-degree murder means life in prison without the possibility of release, instead of death.

Under state law, mitigating factors in potential death-penalty cases can include evidence of an extreme mental disturbance or impairment. Leniency also can be merited if a suspect acted under duress or domination of another person.

Meanwhile, 3 weeks after Ramsdell issued his ruling, King County Superior Court Judge Ronald Kessler ruled Satterberg abused his discretion by relying on a flawed investigation into mitigating factors that could have merited leniency for accused cop-killer Christopher Monfort.

Kessler tossed the death penalty in the case even though Monfort's defense team hadn't provided any mitigation evidence to the state for more than 3 years after Monfort was charged in the fatal shooting of Seattle police Officer Tim Brenton on Halloween 2009.

The Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in Monfort's case June 27.

While McEnroe and Anderson's attorneys want the Supreme Court to uphold Ramsdell's ruling and dismiss the death penalty from consideration, Satterberg's office has asked the court to reverse Ramsdell's decision, reinstate the death-penalty notice and remand the case to Superior Court for trial.

It typically takes between 2 and 6 months for the justices to release their written rulings.

Prosecution arguments

Whisman, the senior deputy prosecutor, argued Thursday that Ramsdell had repeatedly denied "a series of (defense) motions all surrounding the prosecutor's decision" to seek the death penalty, and each one of them was "trying to get to the core issue" of why the prosecutor didn't find the defense's mitigation packages compelling.

"Ultimately, the only way to make this decision (to seek the death penalty) reviewable is to have a trial at the charging phase," when a prosecutor decides what charges to file against a defendant, Whisman said. But, he said, that would then make "the judge a decision-maker," which the Supreme Court "has consistently said" is inappropriate at the accusatory stage of a trial.

Whisman pointed out that prosecutors proposed the statute's mitigation language back in 1980 and said the decision to seek the death penalty isn't subject to judicial review because "it's a charging decision." He also said upholding Ramsdell's ruling in the case could potentially overturn earlier Supreme Court decisions.

Ross said if a prosecutor decides to seek the death penalty based "only on how easy it is for the state to prove" a crime, the application of it becomes random. She claimed Satterberg's office "didn't care" about the mitigation evidence.

"Mainstream white people" argument

Ross, in a passing reference before the Supreme Court, also raised a racial argument outlined in the defense brief.

Ross and her co-counsel argued in their brief that Satterberg has made 6 death-penalty decisions during his tenure, filing notice of intent to seek the punishment against McEnroe, Anderson and Monfort, who are all accused of killing "mainstream white people." He did do so in the other cases, where victims included a lesbian, a gay man, an Asian child and a mixed-race baby, the brief says.

In their reply brief, Whisman and Senior Deputy Prosecutor Andrea Vitalich called the allegations "politically charged and specious." In all 3 cases where the death penalty was not sought, the defendants presented mitigating evidence, "including documented instances of mental illness predating their crimes," the brief says.

Outside the courtroom, Pam Mantle - whose daughter Erica Anderson and grandchildren Nathan and Olivia were among those killed - said the constant delays in the case have taken a toll.

"Everything has been put on hold. You just wait and wait and nothing happens," she said.

(source: Seattle Times)

************************

1st-degree murder finding puts death penalty on table for Scherf


A Snohomish County jury found Byron Scherf guilty of 1st-degree murder Thursday, which means the death penalty is now an option.

The jury was tasked with determining whether Scherf, 54, planned the killing of corrections officer Jayme Biendl, 34, or if it was just a violent attack.

Prosecutors say they plan to pursue this as a capital murder case.

A jury takes up the sentencing phase on Monday.

Scherf and his lawyers did not dispute that he strangled a corrections officer to death with an amplifier cord in the prison chapel of the Washington state Reformatory at Monroe.

Scherf is a convicted rapist who was serving a life sentence in January 2011 when he killed Biendl He initially cooperated with investigators and confessed but stopped because he says he was denied jail privileges that had been promised. His trial began May 1.

After closing arguments Thursday, the jury had the option of convicting Scherf of 2nd-degree murder, which would remove execution as a punishment, The Daily Herald reported.

Scherf's lawyers suggested he didn't plan to kill Biendl, and they say he blacked out in the final minutes of her life.

The jury saw Scherf's video confession this week and heard forensic testimony about how Biendl was strangled with an amplifier cord. Scherf said he first planned to ambush and beat up Biendl over something she said to him. He refused to say what set him off.

On Wednesday, Snohomish County Medical Examiner Norman Thiersch testified it would have taken four to 5 minutes of constant pressure to strangle Biendl. It took significant force to fracture the cartilage in her neck while she struggled to survive, he said.

Scherf's DNA was found on Biendl's fingernails. His blood was found on her coat and the amplifier cord, forensic scientists from the state crime lab testified.

Scherf's hands were bright red with an obvious mark across a palm, testified a Monroe police detective who saw him a few hours after the killing.

Scherf said he blacked out while pulling on the cord. When he came to, he was sitting in a chair in the back of the church sanctuary. He told detectives he had no memories of Biendl dying.

(source: Associated Press)






USA:

The flaws in the US justice system----What does 1 death row inmate's execution, halted at the last minute, reveal about capital punishment in the US?


Convicted of murdering two white students in 1994, Willie Manning was sentenced to death.

His execution was to be carried out on Tuesday evening. But at the 11th hour, the Mississippi Supreme Court stepped in and blocked it.

The court did not give a reason for its decision, however doubts over the evidence used to convict Manning have been piling up.

The US department of justice recently sent several letters saying parts of testimonies given by 2 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) experts were erroneous.

The FBI has even offered to conduct DNA tests, an offer which was rejected by Mississippi's attorney general.

The case has once again raised questions over capital punishment in the US, and while 18 states have abolished the penalty, 32 have not.

From 1973 to 2012, 142 people sentenced to death have been exonerated in 26
different states.

In Texas, 12 people have been exonerated - the state that accounts for nearly 1 in 3 executions since 1976.

And 20 death row inmates have been found innocent in Illinois, where the death penalty was abolished in 2011.

Florida tops the list - where 24 people have been exonerated - that is 1 out of every 6 exonerations in the US. And in the same state, legislators are trying to pass a law that would make it more difficult for inmates to appeal their case, speeding up their road to execution.

"When someone sits on death row for 10, 20, 30 years, it really makes a mockery of our justice system," said Republican Senator Rob Bradley. "It's not fair to the victims' families not only to be traumatised by the loss of a loved one, but then have to sit and suffer while justice is not realised year after year after year. This is not about guilt or innocence, it's about timely justice."

Another Republican who sponsored the bill in the lower house, Matt Gaetz said: "Only God can judge. But we can sure set up the meeting."

So what does Willie Manning's case reveal about capital punishment in the US? Should death penalty still be implemented or is it a good time to stop its practice?

To discuss this, Inside Story Americas, with presenter Kimberly Halkett, is joined by guests: Stephen Harper, a law professor at Florida International University and has represented many prisoners facing the death penalty; Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center and a law professor at Catholic University; Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and former US associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan; and Rob Mink, Willie Manning's attorney.

"Well I think the only higher burden of proof can be to get rid of the death penalty, and I say that because there been 24 people in Florida alone, who are on death thrown who were exonerated. the system that we have, the justice system, is full of imperfections...So I don't think that the death penalty can survive because the human error is just simply too great... "

(source: Stephen Harper, law professor at Florida International University----Al Jazeera)

************************

Feds want Mass. man's death penalty reinstated


Prosecutors have asked a federal appeals court to reinstate the death penalty sentence handed down to a man who killed three people in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Gary Sampson, a drifter who grew up in Abington, Mass., was convicted in 2003 of killing 19-year-old Jonathan Rizzo of Kingston, Mass., 69-year-old Philip McCloskey of Taunton, Mass., and 58-year-old Robert Whitney of Concord over a 6-day stretch in 2001.

He was sentenced to death, but in 2011 a judge ordered a new sentencing trial because one juror had intentionally answered questions dishonestly on a juror questionnaire in an attempt to hide her family's criminal past.

Sampson's lawyer said the juror's lies were relevant.

Prosecutors argued Wednesday there was no reason to set the sentence aside, since issues on the questionnaire were not connected to Sampson's crimes.

(source: Associated Press)






US MILITARY:

Judge declines to drop death penalty for Fort Hood shooter


A military judge on Thursday again denied a request from accused Fort Hood gunman Army Major Nidal Hasan to remove the death penalty as a punishment option in his forthcoming court-martial on charges of killing 13 people in a 2009 shooting rampage.

At a pre-trial hearing, judge Colonel Tara Osborn also denied requests from the defense that Hasan's trial be pushed back until September 1 and that a media affairs expert be appointed at government expense to assist the defense in jury selection.

Selection of the panel of officers who will act as the jury is set to begin on May 29, although Osborn said Thursday that interviews with prospective jurors might not begin until the following day.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is facing the death penalty for opening fire in Fort Hood, Texas, on a group of soldiers who were preparing to deploy to Iraq on November 5, 2009.

In addition to the 13 killed, 32 were wounded, and Hasan, 42, is paralyzed from the chest down from gunshots fired by two civilian Fort Hood police officers who ended what was the worst shooting at a U.S. military installation.

The defense requested the trial delay because recent media reports about the April 15 Boston Marathon bombings have mentioned Hasan.

"Media coverage was saturated again," Lieutenant Colonel Kris Poppe, the lead defense lawyer, told the judge. "The comparisons are striking and troubling."

But Colonel Steve Henricks, one of the prosecutors, said prominent stories about the Boston bombings had only mentioned Hasan briefly, and Osborn said: "How do we know that nothing else will happen between now and the time of the trial that will bring this case to public attention again?"

Osborn previously denied a request by Hasan's lawyers that the death penalty be removed from consideration in return for a guilty plea. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the unique law code that governs the armed forces, does not allow a guilty plea to a capital charge.

"The evidence is overwhelming, so the defense has always concentrated on two things: How can we delay this trial and how can we get a reduced sentence?" said Jeffrey Addicott, a former legal adviser to the Army Special Forces and a professor of law at St. Mary's University in Texas.

"The defense is hoping that the more time that goes by, they can just get the government to throw up their hands in frustration and say, OK, we'll just accept a guilty plea."

Osborn has been trying to get the trial schedule on track after extensive delays while the military justice system debated whether Hasan, who is Muslim, should be required to shave his beard to comply with military rules. Osborn has put that issue aside.

Opening arguments in the trial are expected to begin on July 1. Security is being ramped up at Fort Hood's Lawrence J. Williams Courthouse in preparation for the trial. Officials have placed bullet-proof sand-and-fiber barriers close to the building.

Fort Hood is a 340-square-mile (880-square-km) Army post located about 60 miles north of Austin, Texas.

(source: Reuters)

_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty

Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply via email to