Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-03092/USCOURTS-caDC-00-03092-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Hsin-Yung Yeh
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 9, 2001 Decided January 29, 2002

No. 00-3092

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Hsin-Yung Yeh, a/k/a Yeh Hsin Yung,

Appellant

No. 00-3093

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Jian Zhou Li,

Appellant

---------

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 1 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

No. 00-3094

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Yuan Dian Wang,

Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 99cr00425-01)

(No. 99cr00425-03)

(No. 99cr00425-04)

W. Gregg Spencer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, argued the cause for the appellants. A. J. Kramer, Federal

Public Defender, and Joanne Vasco and Michael J. McCarthy, appointed by the court, were on brief.

Susan A. Nellor, Assistant United States Attorney, argued

the cause for the appellee. Roscoe C. Howard Jr., United

States Attorney, and John R. Fisher, Joseph B. Valder and

Kenneth W. Cowgill, Assistant United States Attorneys, were

on brief.

Before: Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and

Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: Appellants

Hsin-Yung Yeh (Yeh), Yuan Dian Wang (Wang) and Jian

Zhou Li (Li) seek vacatur of their sentences and remand to

the district court for resentencing. In their joint brief, Yeh

and Wang offer one challenge each to their sentences and Li

challenges his sentence on two grounds.

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 2 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Yeh contends that the district court erred in applying to his

sentence a four-level enhancement pursuant to section

3B1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.

or Guidelines) as "an organizer or leader of a criminal activity

that involved five or more participants or was otherwise

extensive." Wang asserts that the court erred in imposing a

five-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment under 8 U.S.C. s 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) for attempting to "bring[ ]

[three or more unauthorized] aliens" into the United States

"for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial

gain." Li makes the same assertion as Wang and argues in

addition that the district court improperly applied a two-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. s 2L1.1(b)(5) for "intentionally

or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious

bodily injury to another person." Their contentions are

without merit and we therefore affirm the sentences of all

three.

I.

On December 6, 1999 a United States Coast Guard aircraft

sighted a freighter 400 miles south of Guatemala sailing

towards the Guatemala-El Salavador coast.1 The Coast

Guard Cutter MUNRO was called to investigate the vessel,

which had no apparent identification or markings. To no

avail, the MUNRO tried to communicate with the freighter.

On December 7 the MUNRO launched an inflatable boat,

the MUNRO 2, to approach the freighter and attempt communications once again. Upon questioning, Yeh and Wang--

who were on the freighter's main deck--told Coast Guard

Petty Officer Andrew Ha, the MUNRO's Chinese interpreter,

that the vessel was named the Wing Fung Lung (WFL) and

that it was headed toward Panama with a load of plywood and

six crewmen aboard. When the Coast Guard asked to board

the WFL, Yeh refused. During this exchange, boarding team

members on the MUNRO 2 noticed numerous faces peering

__________

1 The following factual account is drawn largely from Wang and

Li's presentence reports. See generally Sealed App. of Appellee,

Tabs 1 and 2.

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 3 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

out of portholes beneath the WFL's main deck. Suspecting

that Yeh and Wang were smuggling aliens, the MUNRO

dropped back from the WFL to feign disinterest in the

vessel's activities in order to see if the WFL's crew would

permit the suspected aliens to appear on deck.

On December 9, lookouts aboard the MUNRO observed

red flares over the WFL and scores of people frantically

waving their arms on the WFL's deck. Recognizing the

flares as an international signal of distress, the MUNRO

launched both of its small boats with rescue and boarding

teams. Once aboard the WFL, the teams determined that

the vessel was flooding due to mechanical problems with the

engines. The boarding team counted over two hundred aliens

on the main deck. Coast Guard security officers identified

certain crew members they believed to be shipboard "enforcers" and separated the fifteen to twenty enforcers from the

aliens to keep them from inciting the aliens to violence.

When the officers began handcuffing the enforcers, Yeh

refused to comply with directions. He struggled with the

officers and managed to seize a revolver from one of them.

Yeh shot at Officer Robert Borowczak but missed. Yeh was

then successfully restrained and handcuffed.

On deck, the Coast Guard found one life raft and only

twenty life jackets, enough for the enforcers, but not the

aliens, to escape the WFL in an emergency. Coast Guard

engineers determined that the engines were inoperable and

that the ship had to be towed to Guatemala. The Guatemalan

authorities granted the Coast Guard permission to tow the

WFL into port. During the tow, the Coast Guard provided

the aliens with much-needed food and medical attention, after

learning that they had been without food for over forty-eight

hours and without water for over twenty-four hours. The

WFL had only one small toilet area, which was reserved for

females. Most of the aliens had been forced to relieve

themselves in their sleeping areas. Rats and cockroaches

infested the sleeping quarters and food lockers. The aliens

were kept below deck during daylight hours and were only

infrequently allowed on deck for a few hours at night. When

questioned by the Coast Guard, they stated that their destiUSCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 4 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

nation was the United States and that the cost of the trip was

$40,000 per person. The fee was to be paid off or worked off

upon arrival in the United States.

Appellant Yeh pleaded guilty to attempting to "bring[ ]

[unauthorized] aliens" into the United States for financial

gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. s 1324(a)(2), to aiding and

abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 2, and to

assaulting a federal officer while armed, in violation of 18

U.S.C. s 111(a)(1), (b).

At Yeh's sentencing on September 14, 2000 the district

court stated that it believed a four-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. s 3B1.1(a) was applicable. Wayne Justice, captain

of the MUNRO, testified that Officer Borowczak led the

MUNRO's boarding party and was given the task of determining who was in charge of the WFL. He stated that

Borowczak observed Yeh giving orders to the aliens to start

fires and jump ship. Borowczak himself testified that Yeh

was indeed the shipboard leader and that the other enforcers

did not make a move without Yeh's approval. Petty Officer

Ha testified that Yeh volunteered the location of the WFL's

documentation, knowledge that suggested Yeh's leadership

role. Finally, at Wang's earlier sentencing, Wang had testified that Yeh sailed the ship and possessed one of the two

satellite phones on the WFL. The district court concluded

from the foregoing testimony that there was sufficient evidence to support a four-level enhancement under section

3B1.1(a) for Yeh's role as an "organizer or leader of a

criminal activity that involved five or more participants or

was otherwise extensive."

Appellant Wang pleaded guilty to attempting to "bring[ ]

[unauthorized] aliens" into the United States for financial

gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. s 1324(a)(2), and to aiding and

abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 2. With the aid

of an interpreter, Wang stated that he had signed and

understood the plea agreement and that he understood his

possible prison term to be "not less than three years and up

to ten years for the first two aliens" and "not less than five

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 5 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

years and up to fifteen years for each of the third through the

two hundred[th] aliens." App. of Appellants, Tab B, at 9.

At his sentencing on August 25, 2000 Wang testified that he

had boarded the WFL as a passenger but that, as a fisherman, he was subsequently asked to pilot the WFL in exchange for a reduction in his $40,000 fee. Wang admitted

that he knew that bringing unauthorized aliens into the

United States was illegal and that by piloting the ship he was

helping to get the WFL to its ultimate destination.

Although Wang had earlier acknowledged the court's obligation to impose a five-year minimum sentence on a defendant who transports three or more aliens into the United

States for financial gain, he protested that he had attempted

to smuggle only himself. The district court concluded, however, that "legally" Wang was "helping with the enterprise" of

bringing other unauthorized aliens. Id., Tab C, at 37. The

court therefore sentenced Wang to the five-year mandatory

minimum sentence of imprisonment under 8 U.S.C.

s 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Appellant Li pleaded guilty to attempting to "bring[ ] [unauthorized] aliens" into the United States for financial gain, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. s 1324(a)(2), and to aiding and abetting

the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 2. The district court

determined that Li had signed and understood the plea

agreement and that he understood his possible prison term to

be "not less than three years and up to ten years for each of

the first two aliens" and "not less than five years and up to

fifteen years for each of the 3rd [through] the 200th alien[s]."

App. of Appellee, Tab 2, at 11.

Li did not contest the government's assertions that he was

one of the chief "enforcer[s] on the boat" and that he bore the

responsibility "for keeping order, for keeping the aliens in

their places[,] ... for distributing food and water to them ...

[and for] permitt[ing] them to come up on top of the deck to

get air and to exercise." Id., Tab 2, at 18, 22. He also

admitted that he performed these tasks "to save a couple of

thousand dollars" of his $40,000 fare. App. of Appellants,

Tab D, at 64.

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 6 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The district court determined that by signing his plea

agreement, Li (like Wang) had acknowledged that the court

was obligated to impose a five-year minimum sentence because Li had aided and abetted in bringing three or more

unauthorized aliens into the United States for financial gain.

At Li's sentencing on August 29-30, 2000 the court also

concluded that at Li's hands the aliens had endured "a filthy

hold with terrible sanitation and inadequate food." Id., Tab

D, at 60. Because Li was responsible for "keeping order"

among the aliens and for "distributing food and water to

them," App. of Appellee, Tab 2, at 18, the district court added

a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. s 2L1.1(b)(5) for

"intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of

death or serious bodily injury" to them.

II.

In reviewing the appellants' sentencing challenges, which

we address seriatim, we "accept the findings of fact of the

district court unless they are clearly erroneous" and "give due

deference to the district court's application of the [G]uidelines

to the facts." 18 U.S.C. s 3742(e); see also United States v.

McCoy, 242 F.3d 399, 403-04 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 122

S. Ct. 166 (2001). We review issues of law de novo. See

McCoy, 242 F.3d at 404; United States v. Drew, 200 F.3d 871,

876 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

On three grounds, Appellant Yeh challenges the district

court's application of a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.

s 3B1.1(a) for his actions as an "organizer or leader of a

criminal activity that involved five or more participants or

was otherwise extensive." All three of his arguments are

without merit.

First, Yeh argues that "there was insufficient evidence of a

fifth participant"--besides Yeh, Wang, Li and their codefendant Lin Jian (who does not appeal here)--in the smuggling activity. Br. of Appellants at 7. This assertion has no

support in the record, which instead indicates the involvement

of at least five participants, if not more. Li testified at his

(Li's) sentencing hearing that three men named Ton Wei Ki,

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 7 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

"Little Japanese" and Da Sa supervised Li in his capacity as

an enforcer. Li stated that "it's no secret ... some of the

most culpable persons were not indicted in this case," including Little Japanese. App. of Appellants, Tab D, at 28. He

also told the district court that Little Japanese was in charge

of security and ordered him to "help keep peace [in] the

bottom of the boat." Id. As the government points out, this

evidence is undisputed. At the very least, then, the district

court did not clearly err in finding as a fact that there were

five or more participants in the smuggling operation. Application Note 1 to section 3B1.1 states that "[a] 'participant' is a

person who is criminally responsible for the commission of

the offense, but need not have been convicted." U.S.S.G.

Manual s 3B1.1 cmt. n.1 (2001). There can be no question on

this record that Little Japanese was at least as criminally

responsible as his subordinate, Li, was.2 Thus, Little Japanese qualifies as a "participant" under section 3B1.1(a), bringing the headcount to five.

Next, Yeh contends that even if the evidence supports a

finding of five or more participants, the four-level enhancement under section 3B1.1(a) must nonetheless be set aside

because "the district court failed to identify [the fifth] participant." Br. of Appellants at 7 (emphasis added). He argues

that the enhancement "cannot apply unless the sentencing

court 'identifies a participant over whom the defendant exercised managerial or organizational control.' " Id. at 8 (quoting United States v. Luca, 183 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir.

1999)). Yeh's argument is unavailing. In United States v.

Sobin, 56 F.3d 1423 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 936

(1995), we held that a defendant who did not object at

sentencing to the district court's failure to make factual

findings to support a four-level enhancement under section

3B1.1(a) "waived his right to challenge the enhancement on

this ground." Sobin, 56 F.3d at 1428; cf. United States v.

Wider, 951 F.2d 1283, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (following "general rule ... that a federal appellate court does not consider an

__________

2 Li argued as much at his sentencing hearing. See App. of

Appellants, Tab D, at 27-29.

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 8 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

issue not passed upon below" (quoting Singleton v. Wulff, 428

U.S. 106, 120 (1976))). In such circumstances, "we are bound

to uphold the district court's enhancement if supported by the

record." Sobin, 56 F.3d at 1428. As we discussed supra, the

record supports the district court's finding of a fifth participant. Furthermore, as we have cautioned elsewhere, "it

would be both anomalous and inefficient to place [the appellant] in a better position for having neglected to raise a

relevant [sentencing] argument" in district court, United

States v. Whren, 111 F.3d 956, 960 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert.

denied, 522 U.S. 1119 (1998); had Yeh objected at sentencing

to the district court's omission, the court could easily have

cited back to him the five perpetrators--Yeh himself, Wang,

Li, Lin Jian and Little Japanese--thereby preempting Yeh's

"failure-to-identify" ground of appeal.

Finally, Yeh claims that the government failed to prove by

a preponderance of the evidence that he was an organizer or

leader of the smuggling activity. Once again, his contention

lacks merit. Abundant evidence supports the district court's

imposition of the four-level enhancement under section

3B1.1(a) for Yeh's role as an organizer or leader. First, at

his plea hearing, Yeh did not contest the government's assertion that were it not for him, "the boat and the people would

not have made it to America." App. of Appellee, Tab 2, at 18,

22. Second, at Yeh's sentencing, his counsel conceded that

Yeh was "in charge of maintaining ... the operation of the

boat." App. of Appellants, Tab A, at 5. Third, Wang testified at his sentencing that Yeh "was in charge of the boat"

and that "[w]henever phone calls came in from Taiwan"

giving instructions about the smuggling scheme, "Yeh was the

one to receive it [sic]." Id., Tab C, at 29. Fourth, the fact

that Yeh denied the Coast Guard's request to board the WFL

suggests his authority to act on behalf of those aboard.

Fifth, Officer Borowczak testified that Yeh "was the one all

the other enforcers ... looked to before they made any move

at all." App. of Appellee, Tab 4, at 37. Sixth, Officer Ha's

testimony that Yeh told him (Ha) where to find the WFL's

documentation also suggests Yeh's responsibility for the entire ship.

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 9 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Yeh points out that some of the evidence could lead to

conclusions other than the one the district court reached--

that he was an organizer or leader of the smuggling operation. For example, he observes that his knowledge of the

ship's documentation might merely "substantiate his role as

an engineer who had knowledge of ... the ship's engines."3

Br. of Appellants at 11. Nevertheless, because we "give due

deference to the district court's application of the [G]uidelines

to the facts," 18 U.S.C. s 3742(e), we cannot say that the

court erred in adding a four-level enhancement to Yeh's

__________

3 Yeh suggests that the facts of the Seventh Circuit's decision in

United States v. Parmelee, 42 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

516 U.S. 813 (1995), are "strikingly similar to those in the instant

case." Br. of Appellants at 10. We disagree. In Parmelee, the

Seventh Circuit found that the district court had erroneously imposed a three-level enhancement for Parmelee's role as a "manager

or supervisor" in an alien smuggling ring. Parmelee, 42 F.3d at

395. According to the court's recital of the facts, Parmelee met

unauthorized Polish aliens at Grimsby Airpark, a rural airstrip

located just north of the United States-Canada border, whence he

flew them in a small Piper Cherokee airplane to DuPage County

Airport in West Chicago, Illinois. Id. at 389. From the airport,

Parmelee drove them to a prearranged rendezvous point in Chicago, where he delivered the aliens to one of his co-defendants,

Tadeusz Sobiecki. Id. In attempting to demonstrate Parmelee's

role as a "manager or supervisor," the government relied on his

"receipt of money from Sobiecki for his services, his purchase of a

beeper to inform Sobiecki of flight departures and arrivals, and his

upkeep and rental of the plane." Id. at 395. The court found,

however, that such activities might have been "merely inherent in

Parmelee's role as pilot and [did] not necessarily indicate that

Parmelee managed or supervised others." Id.

Contrary to Yeh's assertions, the facts here are in nowise similar

to Parmelee's. Unlike Yeh, Parmelee did not have (and could not

have had) aboard his small aircraft several "enforcers" who "were

responsible for keeping the aliens in their places" and "looked to

[him] before they made any move at all." Moreover, unlike the

months-long smuggling operation aboard the "slow boat [from]

China," which involved hundreds of aliens, the brief flight aboard

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 10 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

offense level for his role as "an organizer or leader of a

criminal activity that involved five or more participants or

was otherwise extensive." Accordingly, we affirm the enhancement.

Appellants Wang and Li both dispute the district court's

imposition of five-year mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment under 8 U.S.C. s 1324(a)(2) for attempting to

bring three or more unauthorized aliens into the United

States "for the purpose of commercial advantage or private

financial gain." Their challenge fails.

Wang and Li claim that they were attempting to smuggle

themselves only into the United States, that each therefore

committed only one violation of the statute and that under

section 1324(a)(2) the three-year mandatory minimum for a

first violation applies.4 Their argument is countered by the

clearly expressed will of the Congress and the undisputed

facts of this case.

In 1996, the Congress amended section 1324(a)(2) in passing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). See IIRIRA of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-21 208, 110 Stat. 3009-546. Before the amendment,

section 1324(a)(2) mandated that punishment be administered

__________

the Piper Cherokee, which involved only a handful of aliens, required less supervision.

4 Wang and Li also assert that "the penalty provisions of 8 U.S.C.

s 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous" and

that "the rule of lenity should apply to all sentences imposed in this

case." Br. of Appellants at 13. We reject their "conclusory assertions"--which occupy no more than one sentence of their brief--

because they are not properly before this court. See Wash. Legal

Clinic for the Homeless v. Barry, 107 F.3d 32, 39 (D.C. Cir. 1997)

(litigant did not properly raise issue by addressing it in "cursory

fashion" with only "bare-bones arguments" (quotation omitted));

see also Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd.,

749 F.2d 856, 859 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (declining to resolve question

"on the basis of briefing which consisted of only three sentences ...

and no discussion of the relevant statutory text ... or relevant case

law").

"for each transaction constituting a violation of this paragraph, regardless of the number of aliens involved." See

United States v. Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d 1199, 1201 (11th

Cir.) (quoting 8 U.S.C. s 1324(a)(2) (1996)) (emphasis added),

cert. denied, 528 U.S. 911 (1999). In section 203(d)--entitled

"Applying Certain Penalties on a Per Alien Basis"--the

IIRIRA deleted "for each transaction ... regardless of the

number of aliens involved" and replaced it with the current

phraseology, "for each alien in respect to whom a [smuggling]

violation ... occurs." Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d at 1201 (quoting IIRIRA, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546,

3009-566) (emphasis added).

Like the Eleventh Circuit, we are of the opinion that "[i]n

changing the text of the statute, Congress clearly expressed

its intent that district courts determine the penalties for alien

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 11 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

smuggling offenses based on the number of aliens the defendant[s] smuggled into the United States." Id. Both Wang

and Li admitted to conduct amounting to an attempt to bring

into the United States all 200 aliens aboard the WFL. Wang

acknowledged that he had piloted the WFL in exchange for a

reduction in his $40,000 fee. Li conceded that he was one of

the chief "enforcer[s] on the boat," App. of Appellee, Tab 2, at

18, 22, and that he acted in that capacity "to save a couple of

thousand dollars" of his $40,000 fare, App. of Appellants, Tab

D, at 64. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's imposition of five-year sentences upon Wang and Li.

Appellant Li also disputes the district court's application of

a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. s 2L1.1(b)(5)

for "intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of

death or serious bodily injury" to the aliens aboard the WFL.

Because Li did not raise his section 2L1.1(b)(5) objection at

sentencing, we may reverse for "plain error" only, see United

States v. Dawson, 990 F.2d 1314, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1993), that

is, error "so obvious and substantial or so serious and manifest that it affects the very integrity of the trial process." Id.

(quotations omitted).

Li claims that he "had no control over the conditions

aboard the [WFL], ... was not responsible for [them] and

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 12 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

should not be held accountable for them." Br. of Appellants

at 15. His assertion disregards the record. Li admitted to

the district court that he was responsible--and received

compensation--"for keeping order, for keeping the aliens in

their places[,] ... for distributing food and water to them ...

[and for] permitt[ing] them to come up on top of the deck to

get air and to exercise." App. of Appellee, Tab 2, at 18, 22.

Notwithstanding Li's responsibilities, the aliens had suffered

without food or water for at least several hours by the time

the MUNRO arrived. This fact alone--to say nothing of the

appalling conditions below deck--is ample evidence that Li

"recklessly creat[ed] a substantial risk of ... serious bodily

injury" to the aliens he was paid to help bring into the United

States. The district court, therefore, committed no error,

plain or otherwise, in applying to Li's offense level a two-level

enhancement pursuant to section 2L1.1(b)(5).

For the foregoing reasons, the sentences of Yeh, Wang and

Li are

Affirmed.

USCA Case #00-3092 Document #654328 Filed: 01/29/2002 Page 13 of 13