Articles Posted in Court Decisions

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

January 19 – January 23, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Waddington v. Sarausad, No. 07-772 In a case arising from a fatal drive-by shooting of a group of students standing in front of a Seattle high school, grant of a petition for habeas relief from defendant’s conviction for being an accomplice to second-degree murder, attempted murder, and assault is reversed where: 1) Washington courts reasonably concluded that the trial court’s instruction to the jury regarding accomplice liability was not ambiguous; and 2) even were it ambiguous, the circuit court still erred in finding the instruction so ambiguous as to cause a federal constitutional violation.

U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff’s house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant (whom plaintiff had voluntarily admitted to the premises), a court of appeals ruling reversing a ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the procedure the Supreme Court mandated in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement; and 2) petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established at the time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Spears v. US, No. 08–5721 In proceedings arising from the government’s appeal of a sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and powder cocaine, a circuit court’s ruling reversing a mandatory minimum sentence is reversed where district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Sentencing Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines Continue reading

January 23, 2009 From the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section “> www.abanet.org/crimjust“>

Spears v. US, No. 08–5721

The government appealed a sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and powder cocaine in which the District Court reduced the sentencing range for crack cocaine from the 100 to 1 ratio to a 20 to one ratio based on the U. S. Sentencing Commission guidelines and the Smith and Perry cases. The District Court imposed a sentence based on a 20 to 1 ratio which was its interpretation of the mandatory minimum sentence in the case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district Court’s interpretation of the minimum sentence in the case and imposed a tougher sentence based on the 100 to 1 ratio. The Supreme Court remanded for rehearing by the Eighth Circuit which again imposed the tougher sentence. On rehearing the Supreme Court reversed stating, “we now clarify that district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines.”

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 19.21, 2009:

1. People v. Starnes, 5042, 5249/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 125; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 119, January 15, 2009, Decided, January 15, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 12 ,15, 2009

1. People v. Kelley, 4996, 6077/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 49; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 67, January 8, 2009, Decided, January 8, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 8, 2009
1. People v. Molloy, 4975, 2789/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 7; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14, January 6, 2009, Decided, January 6, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, …

2. People v. Lubbe, 4963, 7131/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 35; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17, January 6, 2009, Decided, January 6, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, …

3. People v. Anonymous, 4959 7146/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 31; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 32, January 6, 2009, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, …

4. People v. Goldstein, 4976, 527/99, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6, January 6, 2009, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), …

5. People v. Wallace, 4948, 1922/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 23; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 35, January 6, 2009, Decided, January 6, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, …

6. People v. Olmeda, 4970, 1869/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29, January 6, 2009, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, …

7. People v. Reddick, 4618, 2880/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9169; 56 A.D.3d 344; 868 N.Y.S.2d 28; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8658, November 20, 2008, Decided, November 20, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J. …
Continue reading

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 7, 2009
1. People v. Howell, 4652, 6053N/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9264; 56 A.D.3d 373; 867 N.Y.S.2d 331; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809, November 25, 2008, Decided, November 25, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), …

2. People v. Lynah, 4656, 1417/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9268; 56 A.D.3d 375; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8791, November 25, 2008, Decided, November 25, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), …

3. People v. Vasquez, 4660, 1990/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9272; 56 A.D.3d 378; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8804, November 25, 2008, Decided, November 25, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J. …

4. People v. Kurell B., 4661, 4662, 2873/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9273; 56 A.D.3d 379; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8801, November 25, 2008, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), …

5. People v. Ross, 4664, 1285/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9275; 56 A.D.3d 380; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8816, November 25, 2008, Decided, November 25, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, …

6. People v. Green, 4588, 5885/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9278; 56 A.D.3d 390; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8808, November 25, 2008, Decided, November 25, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, …

7. People v. Cardoza, 4677, 5504/97, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9285; 56 A.D.3d 396; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8803, November 25, 2008, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, …
Continue reading

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 1, 2009

1. People v. Vallevaleix, 4921, 511/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 10203; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9955, December 30, 2008, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

January 5-8, 2009:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, MEDIA LAW, MILITARY LAW
Associated Press v. US Dep’t of Def., No. 06-5352
In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action brought by the Associated Press against the Department of Defense, judgment mainly for AP ordering the DOD’s disclosure of, inter alia, Guantanamo detainee identifying information contained in records of DOD’s investigations of detainee abuse at Guantanamo is reversed where: 1) detainees and their family members have a measurable privacy interest in the nondisclosure of their identifying information in such records; 2) the AP failed to show how the public interest would be further served by disclosure of their identities; and 3) thus, the identifying information is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA privacy exemptions.

ATTORNEY’S FEES, PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, No. 06-1302, 06-3810
In a case arising from a medical malpractice action which had been settled, denial of attorney’s application for attorneys’ fees is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application based on a finding that attorney engaged in misconduct with respect to the fees and expenses in the case and that he failed to represent his client adequately with respect to the post-settlement proceedings in the district court; and 2) the record did not support his claim of bias
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SECURITIES LAW, WHITE COLLAR CRIME
US v. Kelley, No. 06-5536
A conviction for securities fraud and wire fraud is affirmed where: 1) although the use of bogus account statements to lull defrauded investors is not in and of itself sufficient to establish a securities law violation, the use of such statements is relevant as evidence to prove, inter alia, a defendant’s intent to defraud and the extent of the scheme employed; and 2) thus, there was no error in admitting such evidence in this case.

ATTORNEY’S FEES, BANKRUPTCY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMMERCIAL LAW, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW
In Re: Smart World Techs., LLC, No. 08-1721
In the bankruptcy context, pre-approval of a fee agreement under 11 U.S.C. section 328(a) depends on the totality of the circumstances, including whether the professional’s application, or the court’s order, referenced section 328(a), and whether the court evaluated the propriety of the fee arrangement before granting final, and not merely preliminary, approval. In the circumstances of this case, the circuit court rules that: 1) the bankruptcy court’s Retention Order was a pre-approval within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 328(a); and 2) no subsequent developments warranted modifying the terms of appellee-firm’s retention. ..

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMMERCIAL LAW, CONTRACTS, INTERNATIONAL LAW
CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 07-3444
In a commercial contract dispute, dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the district court’s ruling, one of the defendants was not an indispensable party; and 2) thus, that defendant could be dropped as a party so as to preserve diversity jurisdiction.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
US v. Uddin, No. 07-3121
A sentence for food stamp fraud and theft of public property is affirmed where, despite the absence of data as to the exact amount of loss, the district court’s loss calculation was a reasonable estimate of the loss caused by the defendant, and its forfeiture calculation was not plainly erroneous.
Continue reading

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v. Riley, 4865, 4795/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 10035; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9794, December 23, 2008, Decided, December 23, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, …

2. People v. Merzianu, 4876, 5955/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 10042; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9784, December 23, 2008, Decided, December 23, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Stolz, J.), …

3. People v. Williams, 4897, 2656/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 10056; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9780, December 23, 2008, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, …

4. People v. Deleon, 4891, 6622/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 10052; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9773, December 23, 2008, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, …

5. People v. Sears, 4896, 3043/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 10055; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9778, December 23, 2008, Decided, December 23, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, …

6. People v. Santiago, 4894, 456/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 10054; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9783, December 23, 2008, Decided, December 23, 2008, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, …
Continue reading

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

December 29, 2008 – January 3, 2009
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 31, 2008 US v. Andrade, No. 081175 In a prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1), denial of a motion to suppress the firearms and ammunition seized by police officer is affirmed where police officer’s actions were reasonable under the totality of circumstances.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 31, 2008 US v. Spinelli, No. 99-1344, 99-1394 Conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a dangerous weapon, both for the purpose of increasing and maintaining a position in a racketeering enterprise, and related offenses are affirmed. Although the prosecutor erred by vouching to the jury that the government’s cooperating accomplices had never perjured themselves or falsely implicated anybody in a crime, her improper remarks did not justify disturbing the verdict.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 30, 2008 US v. Dews, No. 086458 In prosecutions for distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and money laundering, denial of defendants’ motions for reductions of sentence is reversed and remanded where: 1) defendants agreed to plead guilty if the district court would sentence them to a guidelines term of imprisonment of 168 months, and the district court did so; and 2) defendants did not agree that they would not seek relief under section 3582(c)(2) in the event the Sentencing Commission retroactively amended a relevant guideline.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 29, 2008 US v. Elashyi, No. 06-10176 Convictions of illegally exporting computer equipment, money laundering, dealing in property of a designated terrorist, and related offenses are affirmed for 4 of 5 co-defendants over their various unmeritorious challenges, including insufficiency of the evidence, improper admission of hearsay evidence, and improper jury instructions. One defendant’s conviction was reversed, however, on certain of the charges where the government’s prosecution of him breached an unambiguous plea agreement stemming from earlier charges involving the very same facts and circumstances.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 23, 2008 US v. Percel, No. 07-20236 Convictions arising from a conspiracy to possess and distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine are affirmed. Judge did not commit plain error by omitting the word “not” when reciting the requested “no-adverse-influence” instruction, given that the written jury instructions contained the correct wording. Testimony made by two witnesses pursuant to a plea agreement was properly admitted and was sufficient for the jury to convict, where the jury was properly instructed to weigh the credibility of these witnesses with great care. (Revised opinion) .
Continue reading

Contact Information