ÿWPC) ÓZ!ǦÓË›"_$œš"Óô БÇ|†rÿl´“*n)%!œgŸïÀr4’z Wæøú#­FÇšnØM‘Òv”=òLlÜþ%8Oi‹W@¥ehß3)<8©’¾azw¾@!©÷1zzÂ¥kL(uîÓ=×1[éScHë½GË ªz¦²Å)-òÜR\7^ÆèÉ䆂®„7û›n¯/þ‚…äéz§Í:Vñ솩Ԇfyô•êúæ»FÀö8GB©Üb¬ˆDUL¼yžKyÑŽñ’…§ð)Ü®š#v¾}öÅ£'õ†o‡VEÄÝÕB¢dEV‰‘¬ëIfù˜ýÖ”V4û nu’Æ .5Æ}~S듹nbý§vÎm @¤¥ -§ç›“6±xëˆÒ–ÄRWgɵxe@é—ì[!ÉíîQ‘®F9Ét¾Y¯ëð`.esc ×ܺ ñé$¬`#YB™)‡M\Ë>­øß0Sõ?ùNiÌ6£Ìn‡Û‡N÷àéò&ëÙlõJG|RîãèZ™{'1­âÞiq¸hìÓl •"9 >öီ/ð&šöp¬à ^ R‹y²¯;h—bOÇO>éªÚš»z<é?Mn#¹—tÙœkIµ ÞbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;×=Eb 0ë&&&& B 0¤. D3Ò D- 0K22 AS}ÆÐ 0¤– 0D: A«~(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó¨;-s üPH,¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÍÝ ƒR[Ÿ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŠÄò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Appellantððs€brief€does€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€with€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÐ ° Ðthat€he€left€the€state€without€permission,€failed€to€attend€counseling,€committed€two€speeding€infractions,€or€possessedÐ tÄ Ða€weapon.€€We€note€that€òòanyóó€violation€of€the€conditions€of€the€Community€Corrections€Behavioral€Contract€would€allowÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€trial€judge€to€revoke€the€sentence.€€Thus,€these€unchallenged€violations€standing€alone€would€themselves€supportÐ üL Ðrevocation€of€the€sentences.€ - ù-(|G2[Ÿ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=l»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŠÄò»»Ô d(|3Çj$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=l»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çj$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=l»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=l»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼=l»»»ÔÑ8€nPXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î4-=lÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼=l»îî4- #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€13,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XnPX»¼=lÔÌò òÔ#†¼=l»XXnP#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ADRIAN€PATTERSONòòóóÔ‡XnPX»¼=lÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€35077€&€36525€€€€€€John€H.€Gasaway,€III,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„01991„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€September€23,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XnPXXXnPÔThe€Appellant,€Adrian€Patterson,€appeals€the€decision€of€the€Montgomery€County€Circuit€CourtÐ xÈ  Ðrevoking€his€two€community€corrections€sentences€and€resentencing€him€to€the€Department€ofÐ d´ ÐCorrection.€€On€appeal,€Patterson€argues:€(1)€that€his€sentences€were€actually€sentences€of€probationÐ P  Ðrather€than€community€corrections€and,€as€such,€the€trial€court€was€without€authority€to€enlarge€hisÐ <Œ Ðsentences;€(2)€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€two€of€the€alleged€violations€of€hisÐ (x ÐCommunity€Corrections€Behavioral€Contract;€and€(3)€that€allowing€a€cooperating€individual€toÐ d Ðtestify€about€Pattersonððs€drug€activity€in€a€pending€federal€drug€case€impaired€his€Fifth€AmendmentÐ P Ðright€against€self„incrimination€at€the€revocation€proceeding.€€Finding€no€merit€to€Pattersonððs€claims,Ð ì< Ðthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô#†XnPXX XnPÊ#ÔÔ#†¼=l»XXnP#ÔÔ‡XnPX»¼=lÔÐ Ø( ÐÓ¾ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼=l»àXnP #ÔÔ‡XnPX.¼=lÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòNorma€McGeeÐ ˆØ ÐOgleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌCynthia€M.€Fort,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Adrian€Patterson.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Renee€W.Ð $"t! ÐTurner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€John€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€C.Ð #`" ÐDaniel€Brollier,€Jr.,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÔ#†¼=l»XXnPÝ #ÔÔ‡XnPX»¼=lÔÌÓ® ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼=l»XXnP€ #ÔÔ‡XnPX»¼=lÔÐ À&"& ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ˜(è#( ÐòòóóÔ#†¼=l»XXnPó #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XnPX»¼=lÔÌà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€Appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€revocation€and€enlargement€of€hisÐ p*À%* Ðeffective€seven„year€community€corrections€sentence,€resulting€in€an€effective€twelve„yearÐ \+¬&+ ÐDepartment€of€Correction€sentence.€€The€procedural€background€giving€rise€to€the€AppellantððsÐ H,˜', Ðeffective€seven„year€sentence€presents€an€involved€history€of€various€failed€alternative€sentencingÐ 4-„(-ý Ðattempts,€including€judicial€diversion,€probation,€split€confinement,€and€community€corrections.€€TheÐ ° Ðorigin€of€this€case€dates€back€to€March€1995,€when€the€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€classÐ œì ÐC€felony€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell€and€was€granted€judicial€diversion.€€Under€theÐ ˆØ Ðterms€of€the€diversionary€program,€the€Appellant€was€placed€on€supervised€probation€for€six€years.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€Appellantððs€law€abiding€status€was€short„lived.€€In€August€1995,€the€Appellant€was€charged€with€Ð `° Ðviolating€probation€based€on€numerous€violations,€including€a€new€arrest€for€drug€violationsÐ L œ Ðoccurring€in€June€1995.€€These€new€charges€ultimately€resulted€in€the€Appellantððs€indictment€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðjury€trial€in€February€1998,€at€which€time€he€was€found€guilty€of€class€C€felony€possession€of€cocaineÐ $ t Ðwith€intent€to€sell.€€On€March€27,€1998,€the€Appellant€was€sentenced€to€four€years€communityÐ  ` Ðcorrections€for€this€offense€and€was€ordered€to€serve€six€months€periodic€confinement.€€Also,€on€thisÐ ü L  Ðsame€date,€the€Appellantððs€grant€of€judicial€diversion€was€terminated,€resulting€in€an€adjudicationÐ è 8  Ðof€guilt€and€a€three„year€community€corrections€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€four„yearÐ Ô$  Ðsentence€for€an€effective€seven„year€community€corrections€sentence.Ð À  ÐÌÔ‡ XnPXXXnPÔà  àOn€April€21,1999,€a€violation€warrant€was€issued€in€both€cases€for€violations€of€theÐ ˜è  ÐCommunity€Corrections€Behavioral€Contract,€namely€violations€of€curfew,€failure€to€pay€court€costs,Ð „Ô  Ðand€failure€to€perform€community€service€work.€€The€court€found€the€Appellant€in€violation€of€theÐ pÀ Ðconditions€of€his€contract€and€ordered€him€to€serve€ð ðone€year€in€the€Montgomery€County€Jail,€dayÐ \¬ Ðfor€day,€and€then€be€re„instated€to€Community€Corrections€to€serve€balance€of€original€sentence[s].ðð€Ð H˜ ÐÌÌà  àAfter€service€of€this€period€of€confinement,€violation€warrants€were€again€issued€on€FebruaryÐ  \ Ð22,€2000,€and€December€31,€2000,€in€both€cases.€€On€July€20,€2001,€a€€revocation€hearing€was€heldÐ øH Ðwith€regard€to€these€violations.€€Based€on€the€evidence€presented,€the€trial€court€found€by€aÐ ä4 Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€Appellant€violated€the€following€contract€conditions:€(1)€leftÐ Ð  Ðthe€state€without€permission;€(2)€failed€to€attend€counseling€as€scheduled;€(3)€committed€twoÐ ¼  Ðspeeding€infractions;€(4)€failed€to€pay€court€costs€as€ordered;€(5)€possessed€a€weapon;€and€(6)€soldÐ ¨ø Ðcocaine€to€an€informant.€€As€a€result€of€these€violations,€the€trial€court€enlarged€the€AppellantððsÐ ”ä Ðthree„year€sentence€to€six€years€and€enlarged€his€four„year€sentence€to€six€years,€for€an€effectiveÐ €Ð Ðtwelve„year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.Ð l¼ ÐÌÌà@‚‚&ìàò òAnalysisó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€lacked€the€authority€to€enlarge€or€modify€hisÐ $X" Ðsentences€because€they€were,€in€effect,€sentences€of€split€confinement€as€provided€by€TennesseeÐ ô$D # ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€40„35„306(A)€and€a€sentence€of€split€confinement€may€not€be€enlarged.€€InÐ à%0!$ Ðsupport€of€this€argument,€he€contends€that,€although€his€sentences€were€entered€as€communityÐ Ì&"% Ðcorrections€sentences,€this€was€error€because,€by€definition,€a€community€corrections€sentence€is€aÐ ¸'#& Ðnon„incarcerative€sentence.€€Thus,€he€asserts€that€because€he€was€incarcerated€for€one€year,€ð ðhe€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnever€subject€to€the€Community€Corrections€ProgramÔ#†XnPXX XnP#Ô€because€his€incarceration€made€himÐ )à$( Ðineligible.ðð€€We€find€this€argument€misplaced.€€The€1989€Sentencing€Act€specifically€provides€thatÐ  |*Ì%) ÐÌÌa€sentence€to€a€community€based€alternative€to€incarceration€may€be€imposed€in€combination€with€Ð ˆØ Ða€sentence€of€split€confinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„104(c)(5)(9).òòóó€€Ô‡ XnPXXXnPÔMoreover,€€TennesseeÐ tÄ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€40„36„302(b),€provides€that€community€based€alternatives€may€be€used€ð ðinÐ `° Ðconjunction€with€a€period€of€shock€incarceration,€or€in€conjunction€with€a€term€of€probation€and/orÐ L œ Ða€term€of€split€confinement€or€periodic€confinement€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„302(b);€sòòee€alsoóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòState€v.€Jimmy€D.€Johnsonóó,€No.€03C01„9602„CC„00062€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€16,Ð $ t Ð1997).€€Thus,€a€one€year€period€of€confinement€may€be€imposed€as€a€special€condition€of€aÐ  ` Ðcommunity€corrections€sentence€in€the€appropriate€case.€€òòIdóó.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€documents€in€the€record€clearly€reflect€that€the€trial€courtððs€sentences€andÐ Ô$  Ðsupervision€of€the€Appellant€was€through€placement€in€the€Community€Corrections€Program.€€TheÐ À  Ðincarceration€imposed€by€the€trial€court€was€within€the€parameters€of€the€one„year€limit€for€shockÐ ¬ü  Ðincarceration.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€retained€jurisdiction€to€enlarge€the€Appellantððs€sentence€asÐ ˜è  Ðprovided€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„36„106(e)(4).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€next€raises€a€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€twoÐ \¬ Ðviolations€of€his€Community€Corrections€Behavioral€Contract.€€Namely,€the€Appellant€alleges€thatÐ H˜ Ðthere€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€a€finding€that€he€drove€on€a€suspended€license€or€that€heÐ 4„ Ðfailed€to€make€payments€on€costs€and€fees.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àUpon€finding,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€a€defendant€has€violated€theÐ øH Ðconditions€of€his€agreement,€a€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€revoke€the€defendantððs€placementÐ ä4 Ðin€the€Community€Corrections€Program€and€cause€execution€of€the€original€judgment€as€it€wasÐ Ð  Ðentered.€€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(4).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThis€court€reviews€revocation€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ”ä ÐStubblefieldóó,€953€S.W.2d€223,€226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ð79,€82€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395,€398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperm.€to€appealóóÐ l¼ Ðòòdenied,óó€(Tenn.€1981)).€€This€means€that€the€evidence€need€only€show€that€the€trial€judge€hasÐ X ¨ Ðexercised€ð ðconscientious€and€intelligent€judgment€in€making€the€decision€rather€than€actingÐ D!” Ðarbitrarily.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Leachóó,€914€S.W.2d€104,€107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòStamps€v.Ð 0"€  ÐStateóó,€614€S.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980);€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1981)).€€Thus,Ð #l! Ðin€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€action,€it€is€our€obligation€to€examine€the€record€and€determine€whetherÐ $X" Ðthe€trial€court€exercised€a€conscientious€judgment€in€determining€if€there€was€substantial€evidenceÐ ô$D # Ðto€establish€that€a€violation€occurred.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proceeding,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Appellant€had€committedÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âthe€following€infractions:€(1)€left€the€state€without€permission;€(2)€failed€to€attend€counseling€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðscheduled;€(3)€committed€two€speeding€infractions;€(4)€failed€to€pay€court€costs€as€ordered;€(5)Ð ° Ðpossessed€a€weapon;€and€(6)€sold€crack€cocaine€to€an€informant.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€alleged€failure€to€prove€the€Appellantððs€failure€to€pay€court€costs,€we€findÐ tÄ Ðsufficient€evidence€from€the€record€to€support€a€finding€that€the€Appellant€did€not€pay€costs€asÐ `° Ðordered.€€The€community€corrections€case€officer€testified€that€during€the€period€of€October€1999Ð L œ Ðto€the€date€of€the€hearing€in€July€2001,€the€Appellant€€made€only€one€scheduled€payment.€€The€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecord,€admitted€into€evidence,€supports€this€testimony.€€The€Appellantððs€contention€that€he€believedÐ $ t Ðpayment€of€his€cash€bond€was€to€be€applied€towards€his€monthly€payments€does€not€refute€this€proof.€Ð  ` ÐThus,€it€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€to€find€that,€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ ü L  Ðevidence,€the€Appellant€had€in€fact€committed€this€violation.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€by€admitting€the€testimonyÐ À  Ðof€a€confidential€informant€regarding€the€Appellantððs€drug€activity€in€a€pending€federal€drug€caseÐ ¬ü  Ðbecause€the€Appellant€could€not€refute€the€evidence€without€impinging€upon€his€Fifth€AmendmentÐ ˜è  Ðright€against€self„incrimination.€€At€the€revocation€hearing,€Lewis€Spencer,€the€confidentialÐ „Ô  Ðinformant,€testified€that€he€had€twice€purchased€crack€cocaine€from€the€Appellant€during€anÐ pÀ Ðundercover€drug€operation.€€The€Appellant€alleges€that€because€of€the€pending€federal€charges€basedÐ \¬ Ðon€these€drug€buys,€he€could€not€address€these€allegations€at€the€revocation€hearing€withoutÐ H˜ Ðincriminating€himself.€€Rather€than€offering€rebuttal€proof€or€addressing€the€allegations,€theÐ 4„ ÐAppellant€chose€to€invoke€his€Fifth€Amendment€right.€€As€such,€the€Appellant€argues€that€it€wasÐ  p Ðerror€for€the€trial€judge€to€consider€the€evidence€in€determining€whether€the€violation€occurred,€andÐ  \ Ðthe€revocation€hearing€should€have€been€postponed€until€the€federal€charges€were€resolved€and€theÐ øH ÐAppellant€was€free€to€offer€such€rebuttal€testimony.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThis€argument€has€been€rejected€by€prior€decisions€of€this€court.€€In€òòBarker€v.€Stateóó,€this€courtÐ ¼  Ðheld€that€a€defendant€can€assert€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€not€to€incriminate€himself€at€a€revocationÐ ¨ø Ðhearing,€but€he€cannot€use€this€right€as€a€shield€to€avoid€cooperating€with€the€court€in€its€fact€findingÐ ”ä Ðmission.€€òòBarker€v.€Stateóó,€483€S.W.586,€588€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972);Ô#†XnPXX XnPÕ #ÔÔ‡ XnPXXXnPÔòòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Cardenóó,€653Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€753,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€584€S.W.2d€242,€243€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1979)€(rejecting€the€argument€that€revocation€proceedings€should€be€continued€for€resolution€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðcharges€forming€the€basis€of€the€violation€in€pending€cases€in€order€to€preserve€the€defendantððs€FifthÐ D!” ÐAmendment€rights).€òòóóÔ#†XnPXX XnP;#ÔÔ‡ XnPXXXnPÔÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€misconstrues€his€Fifth€Amendment€right.€€The€Fifth€Amendment€obviouslyÐ $X" Ðgives€the€Appellant€the€right€to€refuse€to€incriminate€himself.€€In€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€didÐ ô$D # Ðinvoke€his€right,€and€it€was€honored€by€the€trial€court.€€The€Appellant€was€not€forced€to€testify.€Ð à%0!$ ÐHowever,€nothing€in€the€Fifth€Amendment€prevents€the€State€from€using€other€evidence€to€prove€itsÐ Ì&"% Ðburden.€€It€was€the€Appellantððs€choice€not€to€respond€to€the€proof€offered€by€the€State.€€The€FifthÐ ° ÐAmendment€gives€the€Appellant€that€choice€but€does€not€preclude€use€of€the€evidence.€€As€such,€theÐ œì Ðtrial€court€committed€no€error€by€admitting€the€testimony€of€the€cooperating€individual.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ `° ÐÌó óà0  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€Ð8 ˆ(#(# Ðordering€revocation€of€the€Appellantððs€community€corrections€sentences.€€Moreover,€we€find€no€errorÐ $ t Ðin€enlargement€of€the€Appellantððs€effective€sentence€from€seven€to€twelve€years.€€Accordingly,€theÐ  ` Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Ð ü L  ÐÔ#†XnPXX XnP'=#ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE