O fthe Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t C o u rt for the N orther n D is tr ic t  ofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2912 F R ED E. D OW ELL, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Ev ansvill e D ivisi on. No . 09 CV 00063

—Richar d L . Y oun g, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 31, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 17, 2012

B efore K ANNE an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , a nd D E G UILIO , D istrict Judge.  W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . F re d D ow el l si gned a ple a agr eem ent that s peci fi cal l y r ese rv ed hi s right to appeal “c ar eer offen der ” des i g na ti o n i fthe di st r i ctc o ur t f o und h im to be on e a t s en te n c in g. A fte r th e c ou rtm ad e t h is2 N o. 10

- 2912 d es ign at ion , D ow ell c la i m s t h at h e t h en d ire c te d h is attorn ey to fi l e a no ti ce o fa ppea l t o c o nt es t whethe r he w as a c ar ee r o ffen d er . H ow ev er , his co u n se l d id n otfile the no ti ce o fappeal
. S o Dow ell filed a 28 U
. S. C. § 2 255 m o t i o n a s s e r t i n g th a t h i s c o u n s e l ’ s f a i l u r e t o fi l e th e dir ecte d app ealco nsti tuted i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o f co uns el
. The g o ve r nm en t o ppo se d the m o ti o n, a r g ui ng that Dow el l ’ s a gr eem ent in hi s pl ea not to chal l enge h i s s e n t e n c e o n c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k pr e c l u d e d r e l i e f
. We agr ee w i th Dow el l tha t i fhe t ol d his at torney t o appeal the i ssue speci fi cally rese rv ed i n hi s pl ea f orappeal and counseldi d not do so, he r ecei ved in effecti ve ass i stance ofco unse l w h ich can be c or re cted i n a § 22 55 proceedi ng. W e r em and to the di str i ct c ourtto m ake a deter m i nati on a s t o w hetherD ow el l to l d his at torney t o file th e a p p ea l.

I . B AC KGR OUND The federa l go ver nm ent c harg ed Fr ed D owellwith posse ssi ng with the inten t t o dist ribute 5 0 g ra m s o r m or e o fa substa nce con tai ni ng co cai ne bas e in vi ol ati on of21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) and la te r fi l ed an i nfo rm ati on pu r s ua nt t o 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 5 1 a l l e g i ng tha t Do we l l had previ ousl y b een c onvi cted o fa felo ny drug offense. Dow el l deci ded to pl ead gui l ty, a n d i n re turn the go vernm en t ag r ee d t o wi th dr aw the s ec ti o n 8 51 i nf o r m ation. W i tho uttha twi thd r a wa l, Do we l l woul d h a v e f a c e d a m an dat o r y min i m um s en te nc e o ft wenty y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm ent. The parti es prepar ed and si gned a w ri tte n p lea agr eem en t. I n ad d ition to m em orial izi ng the gove rnm en t’sN o. 10

- 2912 3

w i thdrawal ofthe 21 U
. S. C. § 8 51 i nfo rm ati on, the agr eem ent a l so provi ded , am ong othe r thi ngs, thatth e base offense l eve l for Dow el l ’ s cr i m e was 32
. But, the agr eem ent s ai d, i fthe cour t dete rm i ned Dow el l to be a ca re er o ffen derunde r s ec ti o n 4 B1. 1 o fthe Uni te d S ta te s S en tenci ng Guidel i nes, the offense l eve l would be 37. The agr eem ent a l so s p eci fi ed a three

- l eve l r educti on f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty i fDow el l co nti nued to coo perat e with the gov er nm ent. D ow elldid not agree th at he w as a career offend er, and the pl ea agr eem ent s peci fi c al l y r ese rv ed hi s abi l i ty to appea l a d ete rm i nati on that he had care ero ffender sta tus. H e w aiv ed the ri ght t o appeal hi s co nvi cti on and s e nt e nc e o n a nyo the r g r o un d. T he p l e a a g r eemen t ’ s e xa c tl a ngua g e p r o v i de d: I n the eve nt the Cou rt a dopts the Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes S ti pu l ation s set f or th her ei n and sente nces Dow el l to a ter m o fi m pri sonm ent with the gui del i nes r ange deter m in ed i n acco rdance ther ew i th, o r l ower, re gar dle ss of how the sente nce i s ca l cul ate d by the Cour t, Dow el l expre ssl y wai ves hi s r i ght t o ap p ea l t h e c on vic tio n an d se n te n c e im p os ed in t h is ca se o n a ny g r o unds
. . . wi ththe e xc ept i o n o fthe “car eero ffender” sta tus i ssue. Li k e ma nyp l e a a g r e e men t s , thi s o ne a l s o c o nt ai ned a p ro vis ion n ot in g D ow ell’s ag re em en t n otto co n te st h is convi cti on o r sente nce i n a c ol l ate ra l at tack
. The ag re emen ts t a t e d: A dd i ti onal l y, Dow el l expre ssl y a gr ees notto co ntest, o r s ee kt o modi fy, hi s con vi ct i o n o r s en te nc e o r the4 N o. 10

- 2912

m anner i n w hi ch i t w as deter m i ned i n any c olla ter al att ack, i ncl ud i ng, but not l i m i ted to , a n y acti on bro ught under Ti tl e 2 8, U ni ted S tat es C od e, S ecti on 2 255. A t the se ntenci ng hea ri ng, Dow el l ’ s co unsel argued th a tD o we l l wa s n o ta c a r e e r of f en d e r b e c a u s e h i s t wo pr i o r c o nv i ct i o ns wer e r el ev an t co nduc t to the i ns ta nt o ffe n s e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s a g r e e d , a l th o u g h i tc o mm en te d, “Be a n i nt er es tingb ar[ ex am] que st i o n, w ou ld n ’t it ? ” T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco n c lu d ed th at D ow ell had tw o pri orqual i fyi ng fel ony drug co nvi cti ons that m ade hi m a c ar ee r o ffen derunde r U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1. 1. The r es ul tingg ui del i ne s r an g e was 2 62

- 32 7 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm ent. A fterco nsi deri ng the f acto rs i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) and noti ng tha t s om e o fDow el l ’ s o ffen ses o ccurr ed be f o r e he tur ne d e i g ht ee n, a s wel l as th e f ac t th atthe govern m en t had agreed to drop the sec tion 851 inform ati on, the cour t i m posed a sente nce o f18 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. The dis tr i ct c ourtente re d j ud gm ent o n J une 12, 20 08. A no t i c e o fa pp e a l wa s n o tfi l e d wi thin the t e n da ys th at follow ed , w h ich w as req u ire d for t im ely fi l i n g . See F e d
. R
. Ap p . P
. 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( 2 0 0 8 )
. ( A 2 0 0 9 a me n d me nt to F ede r alRul e o fAppel la te Pr o ce dur e 4 ch an g ed th e ti m e t o fi l e a not i ce o fappeali n a c ri m in al case to f ourt een days
. ) On N ove m ber11 , 20 08, Dow el l se nt a l et te r t o the di st r i ctc o ur t as k i ng th at i t al l o w the l ett erto se rv e a s no ti ce t o re quest a n ap p ea l. The l ett er st at ed th at D o w ell h ad p re vio u sly ins tr u c te d h is at to rn ey to re q u es t an ap p ea l, b u t th at h e h a d o n lyN o. 10

- 2912 5

re centl y l ear ned that the a tto rn ey had fa i l ed to acto n hi s r equest. Dow el l l ate r re quested an enl ar gem ent o f ti m e t o fi l e a not i ce o fappealo n the basi s that he had been i n tr ansi t in the w eek s f ol l owing j ud gm en t, w as unabl e t o re ach hi s att or ney, and w as not aw ar e that the no ti ce o fappealh ad n ot been fi l ed. H e a l so ask ed that th e co ur t appo i ntc o uns elt o r epr es en t hi m g o i ng f or w ar d. Befo re the dist ri ct c ourtr ule d on tho se m otions, Dow ell ’s coun sel fil ed a m otion w ith th is court to w i th d ra w as co unsel, as ser ti ng a confl i ct o fi nter est, and the m oti on was gr anted. The di str i ct c ourtl ate r denie d D owell ’ s o therm oti ons; pursuant to Federal Rule ofA pp el l ate Pro cedure 4( a) ( b) ( 4), th e r equest f or enl ar gem ent o fti m e h ad com e t oo l ate
. W e di sm i sse d th e a p p ea l fo r l ac k of ju ris d ict ion
. U nite d State s v. D ow el l , N o. 08-3920 (O rd er Jan. 27, 2009) ( un p ub li sh ed ). On M ay 5, 20 09, Dow el l fi l ed a pro se m oti on f orpost
co nv i ct i o n r el i efpur su an t to 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 5, a ss er ting in it th at h is d efe n se co u n s e l failed to file a tim ely no t i c e o fa pp e a l a ft e r Do we l l h a d r e qu e s t e d that he do so. H e als o subm i tte d a sworn s tat em ent s tat i ng tha t he i nstr ucted hi s t ri alat torn ey to appeal the car eer off enderfi ndi nga nd tha t co uns elf ai l ed to do s o . The d istri ctc o ur t ag r ee d wi ththe g o ve r nm en t th atthe wai ve r pr o vi si o ns i n the pl ea a g r ee m en t pr ec l ud ed an y re lief. D ow ell, n ow rep re se n te d by ap p oin te d co u n se l, appeal s.
II. A N A L Y S IS The S i xth Am en dm en t to the U ni te d S ta te s Con st i tu
ti on g uarant ees c ri m i nal defendants the as si sta nce o f6 N o. 10

- 2912 counsel
. The S up re m e Cou rthas sta ted that“a l aw yer w ho di sr ega rds s p ecifi c i nstr ucti ons f ro m the defendant to file a n oti ce o fappealact s in a m anner that i s pro fess i onal l y unre aso nabl e. ” Roe v. Fl or e s - O r t ega , 528 U
. S. 47 0, 47 6- 77 ( 2000 )
. A nd “[ w ] hen counse l fa ils to fi l e a requeste d app eal, a defe nd ant i s e nti tl ed to
. . . an ap p ea l w ith ou t s h ow in g t h at h is a p p e a l w o u ld likely have m er i t. ” P egu ero v . U nited Sta tes, 526 U
. S. 23, 28 (1999). I n o the r wo r ds , “ [ w] he n a de fe nd a nta s k s h i s a t t o r ne y t o pu rs ue a di r e c ta pp e a l a nd the a t t o r ne y do e s n o tdo so, i t i s perse i neffecti ve as sistance ofco unsel
. ” Gant v. U nited Sta tes , 627 F.3d 677, 681 (7th C ir. 2010). D ow ell m ain ta in s t h at h e re c eiv ed co n st itu tio n ally in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l be c au se h is c ou n se l d id not f ol l ow his dir ecti ve to file a noti ce o fappealo fan i ssue speci fi cal l y r ese rv ed f orappeali n the ple a a gr eem ent. The go ver nm ent, however, m ai ntai ns that D ow ell’s ag re em en t in h is p lea n o t t o c on te st h is s e nt e nc e i n a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c kp r e c l ud e s a nyr e l i e fh er e. I t ar g ue s th atthe pl ea a g r ee m en t onl y r es er ve d the rig h t t o a p p ea l th e c ar ee r offe n d er d et er m in at ion in a d ire c t app eal
. Because the § 22 55 proce edi ng i s a co l l ater ala tt ac k, no t a di r ec t appe al, the g o ve r nm en t say s Dowellwaive d the ab i l i ty to getany re l i efher e. W e r evi ew de nov o the e nfo rce abi l i ty ofa ple a a greem en t’s w aiv er ofd i r ec t o r c olla te ra l rev iew
. See U nited Sta tes v. Q uin tero , 618 F.3d 746 , 750 (7th C ir. 2010). A d ef en da ntma y c e r t a i nl y wa i v e the r i g htt o a pp e al hi s co nvi cti on a nd se nt en c e, as wellas the abi l i ty to c h alle n ge eit h er in a co llat er al a tt ac k. U ni t e d S t at e s v.N o. 10

- 2912 7 A lcala , 6 7 8 F .3 d 57 4, 57 7 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); Keller v. U nited Sta tes , 65 7 F .3d 6 75, 68 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. W e hav e re peatedl y hel d “that a volu ntar y a nd kno w i ng waiv er ofan a pp eali s v al i d and m ust be enfo rce d.” See, e.g., U nite d S t at e s v. Sa ke l l ar i on , 6 49 F
. 3d 63 4, 6 38 ( 7th Cir. 2 0 1 1 ). Th er e a re on ly lim ite d ins ta n c es w h en w e w ill not enf or ce a kno w i ng and v olu n tar y wai vero fdi re ct appe alo r c o l l at er alr evi ew , inc lud ing when th e sentence e xceeds the st atuto rym axi m um , wh en the pl ea or co u rtrelie s o n a c o n st itu tio n ally im p er m iss ible f ac to r l i k e r ac e, o r whenc o uns eli s i ne ffec ti ve i n the n eg ot iat ion of th e p lea ag r e e m e n t. Keller v. U nited Sta tes , 6 57F
. 3d 675, 6 81 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. Dowe l l s i g ne d the ag r ee m en t vo l unt ar i l y, a nd no ne o fthe other af o r ementi o ne d c irc um st an ce s ar e pr es en t, s o the g o ve r nm en t con ten d s w e m us t enforce th e coll ateral attac k w aiver. B u t for a w aiv er to ap p ly, th e d isp u te d ap p ea l o r co ll ate ra l at tackm ust f al l withi n t h e w ai ver ’ s s cope. Id
. A p le a a gr ee m en t is a c on tr ac t. Q uin tero , 61 8 F
. 3d at 751
. As w ith an y c o nt r ac t, “ [ w]e i nt er pr etthe t er m s o fthe agr eem ent a ccor ding to the par ti es’ re aso nabl e e xpectati ons” and constr ue any am bi gui ti es i n the ligh t m ost fav or ab le t o D ow ell. Id. (citations om itted ). The pa r t i e s ’ r e a s o nab l e e xp e c t a t i o ns c o ul d n o th a ve ex tended as f aras the gov ernm ent pr ess es here
. The pl ea ag r ee m en t spe ci ficall y r es er ve s th e r i g htt o a ppea l the car eero ffen der dete rm i nati on. The speci fi c r ese rv at i o n o f tha t r i g ht ne c e s s a r i l y i nc l ud e s a mea ning ful o pportunity to exer ci se it. S eeU nite d State s v. B arnet t, 41 5 F. 3d 690, 69 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( sta ti ng tha t a s co ntra cts, pl ea8 N o. 10

- 2912 bar gai ns conta i n i m pli ci t as w el l as expli ci t ter m s, espec ially th ose im p li cit term s nee d ed to avoid abs urd iti es). A m ea ni ng fulo ppo r tu ni tyt o a ppea l i nc l ude s th e effecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel i n fi l i ng the appeal
. W hen co uns eldo es no t pr o vi de effec ti ve a ss i st an ce by f ai l i ng to file a noti ce o fappealo fan i ssue speci fi cal l y r ese rv ed f orappeali n the ple a, a p et itio ner m ust be abl e t o use a co l l ate ra l a tt ack to sa ve the a pp ealfro m being l ost du e t o c o un s e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o do wh a th e wa s r e qu e s t e d. The f act that Dow el l speci fi cal l y r ese rv ed the ri ght t o appeal the car ee r offender deter m i nati on di sti ngui shes th i s ca se fr o m o urde ci si o n i n N un ez v . U nited Sta tes , 546 F. 3d 450 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . Ther e we cons i dered a § 2 255 i neffec tive as si sta nce o fco unsel cl ai m as ser ti ng tha t a n att or ney ha d not f ol l owed hi s cl i ent’ s r equest to fi l e a noti ce o fdi re ct appeal
. The pl ea agr eem ent wai ved th e r i g htt o a ppea l a nd to p urs ue c o l l at er ala tt ac k, a nd the o nl y e xcepti ons w er e t o conte st the v olu ntar i ness o fthe plea an d t o c ha l l en g e a se nt en ce abo ve the st atut o r y maxi m um . The pl ea there was v o l unt ar y a nd the sente nce wel l bel ow the m axi m um al l owed by st atut e . We s a i d i n th o s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s th a t “ [ a ] l a wy e r who re spects hi s cl i ent’s form alwaive r ofappealdoes n otren d er obj ec tiv ely d efic ien t s er vi c e ” b y fa ilin g t o file a n o t ice of ap p ea l. Se ei d. a t 45 3. ( Tha t po si ti o n putus ato dds wi tho th erc i r cui ts who ha ve he l d tha t th e l aw yerm ust a l w ays fi l e a not i ce o fappealupon re quest. See id
. at 453-54 (c o llecting ca ses)). Bu t, sp eaking to circ ums t a nc e s l i k e o ur s , we s a i d: O n e im p or ta n t c av ea t b ea rs a tt en tio n . Ou r an aly sis su ppo se s th e defen dan t r ea l l y ha s wai ve d hi s en -N o. 10

- 2912 9 ti tl ementt o di r ec t appe al
. I fi t tu rns ou t th atthe wai ve r do es no t co ve r a n i ss ue tha t th e defen dan t to ld c ou n se l h e w an te d to p re se n t on d ire c t a p p e al, th en c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to file a n ot ice of ap p ea l is w it h in the scop e of Roea nd wi l l l e a d t o c o l l a t er al re l i efwitho ut r ega rd to prej ud i ce. Our co ncl usi on that St r i ck l andap p lies is lim ite d to sit u at ion s in w hi ch the w ai ver actual l y gov er ns th e propose d ap p ea l. Id. at45 6. T ha t im p ortan t cave at d es c r ibe s our cas e. D ow ell ’s w ai verdi d not wai ve hi s abi lityto appealthe i ssue that h e t o l d c o u n se l he w an te d to p re se n t o n d ire c t a p p ea l; r athe r, the pl ea s p ecifi ca l l y r es er ve d i t. The r efo r e, c o unsel ’ s f ai l ure to file a no ti ce o fappealm eans col l ate ra l re l i efwitho ut i nquir i ng i nto prej ud i ce. The g o ve r nm en t se ems t o a ckno wl edg e th atthe prej ud i ce inq u irydoes notm att erher e, as i t s ays that Dow el l ’ s s w or n sta tem ent, “i ftr uthful, would have re quir ed the filin g o fan a pp eal, no m att erhow futi l e, o n D ow ell’s be h alf.” T h at st at em en t is co rre c t. See Roe, 52 8 U. S
. at 47 6- 77
. But se ve r al o f th e ar g um en ts th e g o ve r nm ent m ake s s ound ofprej ud i ce. The go ver nm ent a rgues that w e s houl d deny Dow el l r el i efbec ause hi s s entence is “r ea sonabl e, ” but that i s a n i nquir y into the m er i ts of ana pp eal
. W e al so no te tha t whi l e i t i s tr ue tha t th e dist ri ct c ourti m posed a bel ow-gui del i nes s entence , i t m igh t h av e im p os ed an ev en low er on e if D ow ell w er e no t a car eero ffen der. W i thout car eero ffender10 N o. 10

- 2912 sta tus, Dow el l ’ s cr i m i n al his tor y c ate gor y would have been no hi gher than I I I
. The re sul ti ng gui del i ne s ra n ge w oul d have been 10 8- 135 m onths, f arl ess than the 1 80- m o nth s en te nc e he r ec ei ve d. S i m i l ar l y, the g o ve r nm en t ’ s p o s i t i o n th a t we s h o u l d r u l e i n i t s f a v o r o n t he bas is that th ere w as no error in the career offen d er de term ination inco rrectly assu m es th at w e s hou ld inq uire i n t o th e me r i t s o fth e a p p e a l a tth i s s t a g e . T h e S u p r e me C o u rth as m ad e c lea r th at w e s h ou ld n ot
. S e ePeg u e r o, 526 U
. S. at28

- 29. So i fDow el l i nstr ucted hi s t ri alat torney t o fi l e a not i ce ofappeals o th at he co uld a pp ealthe car eero ffender d et er m in at ion an d c o u n se l failed to d o s o, D ow ell re c ei ve d ine ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. B efo re D ow ell can be aff or ded any re l i ef, however, that“i f” m ust be r es o l ve d i n h i s f av o r . The g o ve r nm en t’ s fi na l a r g um en t is th at w e s houl d rul e a gai nst Dowello n the basi s that D o w elldid not in fact m ake th is r eq ue st to his attorn ey . But beca use the di str i ct c ourtdeci ded thi s ca se on the bas i s o fwa i v e r, n o de t e r mi na t i o n ha s y e tb e e n mad e on th is q u e stion of f act. W e are not th e prop er cou rt to do so
. Dowe l l s ubmi tt ed a swo r n s ta te m en t sayi ngtha t he re quested thath is atto rneyappealthe car eero ffender det er m i na tion an d tha t co uns elf ai l ed to do s o , a nd th i s st at ementcl ea r l y a l l eg ed a co ns ti tu ti o na l v i o l at i o n. H e had pers ona l kn ow le d ge of th at all egation, and there is n ot h in g “ p alp ab ly in c re d ible ” a b ou t it
. Se eR ya n v . U nited Sta tes , 6 57F
. 3d 60 4, 6 06 (7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. The r eque stwas c o ns i st en t wi thDo wel l ’ s insisten ce o n theN o. 10

- 2912 11

c ar ve -ou t fo r su c h an ap p e a l i n h is p lea ag re em en t. It al so m ake s s ense th at Dow el l would have w anted to appe althe c ar ee r o ffen derfi ndi ngi n li g hto fthe muc h l o we r g ui de l i ne s r a ng e tha two ul d h a v e r e s ul t e d. Dowe l l ’ s al l eg at i o ns a r e th er efo r e su ffi ci en t to war r an t fu rt h er p ro c ee d in gs . See id
. at 607. The y a r e no t, ho wev er, c o nc lusiv e. As the g o ve r nm ent hi ghl i ghts, Dow el l ’s for m ertr i alco unsel st ate d i n hi s m oti on to withdraw that Dow el l had fi l ed “a let te r w ith th e D ist ric t C ou rtw h ich w as su b se q u en tly tr ea t e d a s a No t i c e o fAp p e a l
. I n th a tl e t t e r Ap p e l l an t sta tes thathe dir ec ted Counselto fi l e a not i ce o fappeal and that he f ai l ed to do s o . . . . Counsel st ate s that the sta te m ents ofA pp el l ant s et f or th i n hi s l ett erdated N ovem ber 11, 2008 o r h is m otion of J an ua ry 7, 2009, are i naccurat e a s t o al l eged co nver sat i ons w i th Counsel c on c er n in g t h e n ot ice o fa p p ea l.” C ou n se l also st at ed in hi s m oti on t o w i thdraw tha t “[ b] ase d on a num bero f di sc us si o ns wi th Appel l an t f o l l o wi ng s en te nc i ng C o u n s e l f or A p p ella n t d id n otfile a N ot ice of A p p ea l.” Inl i g h t o f th e c on flict in g a c c ou n ts , w h et h er D ow ell ask ed hi s cou n selto fi l e a not i ce o fappeali s a f actual que st i o n f o r the di st r i ctc ou rt t o r es o l ve o n r emand, a nd w e re m an d for it t o d o s o. Se ei d. at60 8.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Th e j ud g men t o f the di s t r i c t c o ur t i s V ACATED , a nd thi s ca se i s R EMA NDE D f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs.

9- 17- 12