# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 26 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ju an Dani el Lug o

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa – Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 12 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

8, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re MELLOY, SMITH, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ju an Dan ie l Lug o pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi rin g to m an uf act ur e, di st rib ut e, an d

po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, m et ha m ph et am in e an d m ari

juan a in vi ol at io n of
21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 an d 84 1( a)(1 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to a pr is on te rm 1

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

.of 24 0 m on th s. B e cau se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in de te rm in in g th e

id en ti ty of th e su bs ta nc e fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es , we affi rm

.

I.

On Feb ru ary 17
, 20 10
, a gr an d jury in di ct ed Lug o an d th ree co co ns pi rat or s fo r vi ol at in g 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 an d 84 1( a)(1 ). Lu g o s u bs eq ue nt ly pl ead ed gu il ty an d

en te red in to a pl ea ag reem en t. Th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) 2

reco m m en de d a to ta l of

fen se le ve l of 39

. Thi s reco m m en da ti on was ba se d on a ba se of fen s e l e v e l o f 38 fo r th e qu an ti ty of dr ug s, a fo ur -le ve l in crea se fo r Lug o's

ag gr av at in g ro le as th e l e a d e r a nd or ga ni zer of th e co ns pi racy, an d a th ree- le ve l
red uc ti on for Lug o's acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y

.

At hi s s e nt en ci ng he ari ng , Lug o ob jecte d to th e PSR on se ve ral gr ou nd s. Rel ev an t to th is ap pe al is Lug o's co nt en ti on th at t h e di st ric t co ur t m is ch arac te riz ed

t h e met h am

ph et am in e as "ac tu al " m et ha m ph et am in e (o r "i ce" ), as op po se d to a 3

m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e. The d is tri ct co ur t, ac kn owl ed gi ng th e o fte n di ffi cu lt ta sk of de te rm in in g dr ug qu an ti ty, red uc ed Lug o's ba se of f e n s e l ev el fro m 38 to 36 . The co ur t s ta te d:

The pr oc es s of de te rm in in g dr ug qu an ti ty is al way s – al way s di f f ic ul t be cau se m em or ie s of

te n fad e, th ere is di ffi cu lt y in reca ll in g e x a c t ly whe n th e ch an ge was m ad e fro m m et ha m ph e t a mi n e m ix tu re to ic e, al l th os e k in ds of i ss ue s.

As pa rt o f Lu go 's pl ea ag reem en t, th e go ve rn m en t ag reed to di sm is s two 2 ad di ti on al co un ts of t he in di ct m en t re la ti ng to th e d is tri bu ti on of d ru gs

.
The U.S. Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on Gui de li ne s Man ua l ("S en te nc in g 3 Gui de li ne s" ) de fin es "i ce" as "a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng d- m et ha m ph et am in e hydro ch lo rid e o f at lea st 80 % pu rit y ." U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c) n .(C).

-2

-Here th e ic e al on e eas il y ge ts hi m to a le ve l 36

. . . . [I]t wou ld ta ke 19 or

2 0 ou nc es of ic e jus t to ge t to a le ve l 36

. It wou ld ta ke pr ob ab ly 6 0

ou nc es of ic e a l o n e to ge t to a le ve l 38

. Thi s is th e m os t co ns erv at iv e

es ti m at e I’ve ev er m ad e, bu t I am go in g to fin d a le ve l 36 an d I can jus ti fy th at v e r y e a s i l y ba se d on th e ic e al on e, no t to m en ti on th e

m ari juan a or th e ot h e r meth am ph et am in e wit ho ut at tri bu ti ng th e 17

ou nc es to Mr. Lug o.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Lug o's ot he r ob jecti on s to th e PSR an d, ba se d on th e 4
ad jus te d t ot al off

en se lev el of 3 7 (i nc lu di ng th e sa m e fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e an d t hr eele ve l re du ct io n, re sp ect iv el y ), se nt en ced Lug o t o 2 40 m on th s' i m pr is on m en t. 5

Lug o su bs eq ue nt ly ap pe al ed hi s 24 0- m on th se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t

co ur t clea rly erre d in fin di ng th at th e dr ug in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy was "i ce" an d

no t a m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e. Sp eci fic al ly, Lug o co nt en d s t h a t th e
go ve rn m en t fai le d to m eet it s bu rd en wit h res pe ct t o p r o v i n g th e pu rit y of th e

m et ha m ph et am in e b ecau se it di d no t co nd uc t an y te st in g on th e se iz ed su bs ta nc es

. The go ve rn m en t, ho wev er, cl ai m s th at th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s do no t req ui re th at

pu rit y be pro ve d wi th "ab so lu te ly certa in ty," and th at "d ire ct ev id en ce of th e v is ua l
ch arac te ris ti cs of a dr ug ," as well as ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce an d ex pe rt te st im on y , are al l t ha t i s re qu ire d fo r pr oo f.

Thi s Co ur t su bm it te d Lug o's cas e wit ho ut arg um en t on Mar ch 12
, 20 12
, bu t

su bs eq ue nt ly va cat ed th at su bm is si on on Apr il 24 an d or de red su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g

on th ree i ss ue s: (1) "wh et he r it is cle ar error fo r th e di st ric t cou rt to sen te nc e o n t he
ba si s of 'ic e' m et ha m

ph et am in e de sp i t e th e go ve rn m en t's fai lu re to te st whe th er th e

Lug o al so ob

jecte d to th e PSR on th e gr ou nd s th at (1 ) th e qu an t i t y o f dr ug s 4

was ov ers ta te d, ( 2 ) h e di d no t pl ay an ag gr av at in g ro le in th e of fen se , an d (3 ) hi s cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y was c om pu te d i nc or rect ly.

Th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge ba se d on Lug o's of fen se le ve l an d cr i mi n a l 5 hi st or y cat eg or y is 23 5– 29 3 m on th s' i m

pr is on m en t.

-3

-se iz ed m et ha m ph et a mi n e is in fact 'a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng d- m et ha m

ph et am in e hydro ch lo rid e of at le as t 80 % pu rit y '"; (2 ) "wh et he r th e an al y si s

m ay be di ffer en t de p e nd in g on whe th er th ere was an act ua l se iz ur e of

m et ha m ph et am in e"; an d (3 ) whe th er Uni te d St at es v. St ewart , 12 2 F.3 d 62 5, 62 8 (8 th
Ci r. 19 97 ), an d Uni te d St at es v. W hi te he ad
, 48 7 F.3 d 10 68
, 10 72 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 07 ),

co nt ro l t hi s i ss ue

. W e th en he ard ora l ar gu m en ts fro m th e pa rti es reg ard in g Lug o's

ap pe al an d t he is su es li st ed ab ov e. W e n ow af fir m

.

II.

A.

The go ve rn m en t, fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es , be ars th e bu rd en to pr ov e dr ug type by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 33 5 F.3 d 78 2, 78 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). W e rev ie w a se nt en ci ng co ur t's de te rm in at io n of dr ug type fo r cl ear

erro r, an d "wi ll rev ers e on ly if fir m ly co nv in ced [th at ] a m is ta ke ha s be en m ad e." Id

. (ci ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Max well
, 25 F.3 d 13 89
, 13 97 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 )). W he re on ly
"a sm al l po rti on of th e m et ha mp h e t a m in e reco ve red du rin g [an ] in ve st ig at io n" is

te st ed fo r pu rit y , "t he te st in g ev id en ce co m bi ne d wit h th e te st im on y of wit ne ss es who

a c t i v e l y pa rti ci pa te d in th e dr ug co ns pi racy [can ] am

pl y su pp or t[]" a se nt en ci n g

co ur t's co nc lu si on as to dr ug type fo r a qu an ti ty of dr u g s g r e a t e r th an th e am ou nt

se iz ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Fai rch il d, 18 9 F

. 3 d 76 9, 77 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). "When no
qu a n t i t y h as be en reco ve red
, th e go ve rn m en t m ay pr ov e th e pu rit y of qu an ti ti es
at tri bu te d to th e de fen da nt by ci rc u ms t a n t i al ev id en ce, fo r ex am pl e, a co ns pi rat or 's
rel ia bl e te st im on y

. . . or an ex pe rt' s te st im on y as to th e no rm al pu rit y of

m et ha m ph et am in e pr od uc ed in a la b." Uni te d St at es v. Hou st on , 33 8 F.3 d 87 6, 87 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. In rel yi n g o n w i t ne ss te st im on y as ev id en ce of

pu rit y , "[t ]he fin de r of fact m ay acce pt th e pa rts of a wit ne ss 's te st im on y th at it fin ds
cred ib le whi le reject in g an y po rti on it fin ds im pl au si bl e or un rel ia bl e," Uni te d St at es

v. Bo y ce, 56 4 F.3 d 91 1, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), a n d s u ch "[f ]ind in gs ab ou t th e

-4

-cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es are 'vi rtu a l l y u n r ev ie wab le on ap pe al ,'" id . ( qu ot in g Uni te d

St at es v. Go m ez-P erez , 45 2 F .3d 73 9, 7 43 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) ).

B.

Sev eral of ou r pr io r de ci si on s are in st ru ct iv e on whe th er it was cl ear erro r fo r th e di st ric t c o ur t to fin d, ab se nt te st in g fo r pu rit y , th at th e m et ha m ph et am in e was
pr op erl y cat eg or i zed as "i ce." In St ewart , th e de fen da nt arg ue d th at th ere was no t

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pro ve th at th e co cai ne th at he so ld was " crac k" co cai ne

. 12 2 6
F.3 d at 62 8. Sp eci fic al ly, th e de fen da nt arg ue d th at th ere m us t be evi de nc e th at th e

su bs ta nc e co nt ai ne d co cai ne hydro ch lo rid e an d so di um bi carb on at e. Id

. W e reject ed
th at arg um en t be cau se "t he Sen te n c i n g Gui de li ne s on ly st at e th at crac k co cai ne is

' us ua ll y pr ep ared by pr oc es si ng co cai ne hydro ch lo rid e an d so di um bi carb on at e.'" Id

. (em ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti n g U

. S .S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ) n.D). The Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s th us "d o[ ] no t r eq ui re su ch ev id en ce be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t can co nc lu de th at a

su bs ta nc e is crac k c oc ai ne ." Id . (em ph as is ad de d)

.

A dec ad e la te r, in W hi te he ad
, we ag ai n con si de red whe th er it was clear erro r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to de te rm in e th at a su bs ta nc e is "cr ack " co cai ne ab se nt la bo rat or y
t e s t i n g

. 4 8 7 F.3 d at 10 72 (ci ti ng St ewart , 12 2 F.3 d at 62 8)

. In th at cas e, th e
go ve rn m en t pres en te d tes ti m on y fro m an ex pe rie nc ed na rco ti cs ag en t reg ard in g th e
ap pe aran ce of th e se iz ed su bs ta nc e an d th e co nd it io ns un de r whi ch he fo un d it

. Id

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e ag en t te st ifi ed th at he fo un d th e su bs ta nc e da m p an d in a m ic ro wav e, bu t th at it la te r dr ie d ou t and to ok on a ro ck -li ke fo rm

. Id

. In fin di ng no cl ear erro r i n th e di st ric t co ur t's id en ti fic at io n of th e dr ug as "cr ack ," we rei te rat ed th at " t h e

Und er th e S en te nc in g Gui de li ne s, "cr ack " co cai ne carr ie s wit h it a hi gh er a 6 b a s e of fen se le ve l pe r un it m as s th an co cai ne in a po wde r fo rm

. See U.S. S

. G

. § 2D1 .1(c ); se e al so The us v. Uni te d St at es , 61 1 F.3 d 44 1, 44 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ("[ A]

crac k co cai ne co nv ic ti on [wil l] y ie ld a m uc h hi gh er se nt en ce th an a po wde r co cai ne

co nv ic ti on .").

-5

-id en ti ty of

a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e can

. . . be pr ov ed by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce and

op in io n te st im on y ." Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Co vi ng to n, 13 3 F .3d 63 9, 6 44 (8t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

The ge ne ral pr in ci pl es un de rlyin g ou r de ci si on s in S t e wart an d W hi te he ad

acco rd wit h th e de ci si on s of ou r si st er ci rcu it s. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Lin to n, 23 5
F.3 d 32 8, 32 9

– 3 0 ( 7 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (d is tri ct co ur t's de te rm in at io n of "cr ack " co cai ne

s u p p or te d by "d ire ct ev id en ce of th e vi su al ch arac te ris ti cs " of th e su bs ta nc e a n d

te st im on y of ve te ran n a r c o t i c s ag en t an d fo ren si c ch em is t); Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 15 9 F.3 d 96 9, 98 1– 83 (6 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (te st im on y of fo ren si c sc ie nt is t an d ex pe rie nc ed

na rco ti cs of

fic er, co up le d wit h kn owl ed ge of dr ug pr ep arat io n, su ffi ci en t to sa t i s fy

pr ep on de ran ce st an da rd th at su bs ta nc e was "cr ack " co cai ne ); se e al so Uni te d St at es

v. Verd in -Garc ia
, 51 6 F.3 d 88 4, 89 6 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 08 ) ("Na rco ti cs ne ed no t be se iz ed

or te st ed to be he ld ag ai ns t a de fen da nt at se nt en ci ng

. . . . Lab or at or y te st res ul ts are
pe rh ap s m or e pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce of am ou nt s of pu rit ie s th an ey ewit ne ss te st im on y . . . but [su ch tes ti m on y ] is no t u nr el ia bl e as a m at te r of law." ).

C.

1.

Su bs eq ue nt to th e fil in g of su pp le m en ta l br ie fs
, we de ci de d Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d 41 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). In W al ke r, th e de fen da nt s pl ead e d g u i l t y to

co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, an d th ei r co co ns pi rat or s te st ifi ed at th ei r

se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. Id

. at 41 9– 20

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e de fen da nt s' c o c o n s p i rat or s "co ns is te nt ly id en ti fie d th e m et ha m ph et am in e

. . . as 'ic e,'" an d "d is ti ng ui sh ed th e 'ic e'
. . . from th e an hydro us m et ha m

ph et am in e . . . bas ed on it s app eara nc e, fo rm , pri ce,

an d qu al it y ." Id

. at 4 2 4

. The de fen da nt s arg ue d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by
"cr ed it in g th e te st im on y of [th ei r] co co ns pi rat or s be cau se th ey di d no t ha ve ch em is try

-6

-ba ck gr ou nd s or un de rs ta nd th e de fin it io n of 'ice' un de r th e Gui de li ne s." Id

. at 42 5.

W e reject ed th is arg um en t:

Tha t [th e de fen da nt s] an d th ei r co co ns pi rat or s di d no t ha ve a sc ie nt ifi c

or te ch ni cal un de rs ta nd in g o f th e te rm "i ce" is rel ev an t to th e di st ric t

co ur t's as se ss m en t of th e rel ia bi li ty of th ei r te st im on y as to dr ug id en ti ty

or pu rit y , bu t do e s n o t n e ces sa ril y pr ecl ud e th e di st ric t co ur t fro m fin di ng th e m et ha m

ph et am in e . . . was "i ce."

Id

.

In fin di ng no cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t's id en ti fic at io n of th e su bs ta nc e as "i ce," we no te d "t he fle xi bl e Gui de li ne s a p p r o a ch of al lo win g th e se nt en ci ng co ur t br oa d di sc ret io n to co ns id er a wid e ran ge of rel e v a n t ev id en ce fro m a va rie ty of

so ur ces as lo ng a s t h e e v i de nc e 'ha s su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty to su pp or t

pr ob ab le accu racy.'" Id

. at 42 3 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Si caro s- Qui nt ero , 55 7 F.3 d
57 9, 58 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). Su ch ev id en ce in cl ud es t he so ur ce of th e co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e, th e pr ic e ge ne ral ly ob ta in ed fo r th e co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, th e su bs ta nc e's

ap pe aran ce an d fo rm , an d us ers an d di st rib ut or s' rep or ts of th e id en ti ty an d qu al it y of
th e su bs ta nc e. Id . at 4 24

.

2.

Lug o's cas e is in di st in gu is ha bl e fro m W al ke r, an d th us W al ke r co nt ro ls ou r

an al y si s. Here, Lug o's co co ns pi rat or te st ifi ed reg ard in g th e ph y si cal ch arac te ris ti cs

an d ap pe ar an ce of th e m et ha m ph et am in e in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy. Sp eci fic al ly, th e

se nt en ci n g co ur t he ard te st im on y fro m Tam era Sch ep er th at th e m et ha m ph et am in e fro m Lug o was "p owd ery an d ro ck y an d

. . . cl ear" an d "wh it e," an d th at sh e so ld
si xt y -o ne ou nc es (6 1 oz .) of th e su bs ta nc e be twe e n J u l y 2 0 08 an d Ja nu ary 20 09

. Sch ep er al so tes ti fie d th at Lug o had refe rred to th e su bs ta nc e as "i ce," th at sh e so ld

-7

-it to he r cu st om ers as "i ce," an d t h a t i t w as "m uc h cl ean er" th an an hydro us

m et ha m ph et am in e.

W e fin d no cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t's co ns id erat io n of
, an d rel ia nc e on , Sch ep er's te st im on y to de te rm in e th at Lug o was de al in g in "i ce" an d no t a m ix tu re of

su bs ta nc es co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e. Sch ep er's te st im on y reg ard in g th e am ou nt

an d qu al it y of met h am

ph et am in e th at sh e rece iv ed fro m Lug o is pl ai nl y wit hi n th e
pu rv ie w of ev id en ce th at th e di st ric t co ur t m ay co ns id er whe n m ak in g a fin di ng as to th e id en ti fic at io n of a su bs ta nc e. See W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d at 42 3 (ci ti ng wit h ap pr ov al
Uni te d St at es v. Co ck eri ll
, No. 99 -4 63 4, 20 00 W L85 26 08
, at *2 –3 (4 th Ci r. Ju ne 28
, 20 00 ) (co co ns pi rat or ' s te st im on y th at th e m et ha m ph et am in e "was of ve ry go od

qu al it y " is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a s en te nc in g c ou rt t o c on cl ud e th at th e su bs ta nc e

was no t a m et ha m

ph et am in e m ix tu re)) ; se e al so W hi te he ad
, 48 7 F.3 d at 10 72 ("[ T] he
id en ti ty of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

. . . can be pr ov ed by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce an d

op in io n te st im on y ." (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Co vi ng to n, 13 3 F.3d 63 9, 64 4 (8t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) )).

D.

W e no w ad dr es s, to th e ex te nt th at th ey rem ai n un an swe red
, th e qu es ti on s fo r whi ch th e pa rti es su bm it te d su pp le m en ta l br ie fs

. Fi rs t, as fir st se t fo rth in W al ke r an d

m ad e cl ear in th is op in io n, it is no t cl ear erro r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to se nt en ce on th e ba si s of "i ce" m et ha m

ph et am in e de sp it e th e go ve rn m en t's fai lu re to te st th e pu rit y of

t h e s e iz ed su bs ta nc e. See W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d at 42 5. Seco nd
, th is an al y si s re mai n s

un ch an ge d ev en whe re, as he re, th ere was a n a c t u a l se iz ur e of m et ha m ph et am in e. Thi s Co ur t in W al ke r, wh i le reco gn iz in g th e va lu e of ch em ic al te st in g, se e id

. n.4
, st at ed th at "[t ]he Gui de li ne s do no t re qu ir e th e go ve rn m en t to es ta bl is h th e id en ti ty,

qu an ti ty, or pu rit y of m et ha m ph et am in e by la bo rat or y an al y si s," id

. at 42 3 (em ph as is
ad de d) . See al so id . ("[T]he Gu id el in es do no t sp eci fy wha t evi de nc e is req ui red to

es ta bl is h m et ha m

ph et am in e as 'ic e' an d

. . . we ha ve co ns is te nt ly reject ed arg um en ts

-8

-de m an di ng di re ct ev id en ce of dr ug id en ti ty, qu an ti ty, or pu rit y ." (ci ti ng W hi te he ad
,

48 7 F.3 d at 10 71 –7 2 ) )

. Fi na ll y , St ewart an d W hi te he ad
, al th ou gh de al in g wit h
di ffer en t types of dr ug s, pr es en t th e sa m e is su e as W al ke r an d th is cas e. Tho se cas es th us co nt ro l t o t he ex te nt th at th ey fil l an y ga ps lef t b y ou r de ci si on in W al ke r.

III.

Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rth ab ov e, we fin d no cl ear erro r in t h e d is tri ct co ur t's
id en ti fic at io n of th e su bs t a n c e as "i ce" m et ha m ph et am in e. Acco rd in gl y , Lug o's

se nt en ce i s af

fir m ed

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-