Id. Designed for casual or slip-on shoes with a removable insole. 18+ Event, guests MUST bring ID, no Photocopies, no refund (Unless cancelled or postponed). Post author: Post published: 20 Februari 2023 Post category: auburn gastroenterology Post comments: permanent living caravan parks newcastle permanent living caravan parks newcastle After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. Alabama Highway Patrol. At age 7, he started appearing as 'Moochie' in 1956 on "Adventures in Dairyland," a serial short that took place on a dude ranch with fellow child actor David Stollery who played 'Marty.' David Stollery said, "Moochie - an adorable, talkative kid who was always getting into jams - was not far removed from the real-life Corcoran. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. at 82. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. In granting the motion, the district court stated that "[i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 1992). 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Top brands, low prices & free shipping on many items. Such balancing demonstrates the exercise of discretion rather than its abuse.6 Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no further expressions of apprehensiveness occurred during the following eleven days of the trial and by the court's instruction to the jury that "there was never the slightest realistic basis for any feeling of insecurity." About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . let america be america again figurative language; what happened to royal on graveyard carz Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. App. 12 during the trial. 841(a) (1) (1988). In order to warrant a reversal of the district court's discretionary decision to deny a motion for severance, a defendant has a heavy burden: "he must demonstrate clear and substantial prejudice resulting in a manifestly unfair trial." The Supreme Court has stated that we must "presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be devastating to the defendant." denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. at 39. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. Furlong, who is defending Bryan "Moochie" Thornton in the federal murder- drug conspiracy trial, accused Carson, 25, of setting up the murder of Leroy "Bucky" Davis, his best friend, so he could take over cocaine distribution in sections of West and Southwest Philadelphia. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. App. Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. endobj United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. "), cert. Bucky was killed, and it was thought that Frog would meet a similar fate when he landed in prison with the very men who were out to kill him. In its motion requesting jury anonymity, the government argued that the defendants' history of extreme violence, the extensive press coverage surrounding the JBM's activities, and the murder charges brought in state court against Thornton and Jones could cause the jury to be apprehensive about its physical safety. App. <>/Metadata 120 0 R/Outlines 27 0 R/Pages 119 0 R/StructTreeRoot 32 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences<>>> App. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 0000001589 00000 n 3 and Mr. Fields in substance exchanging smiles and making really an exchange of non-verbal communication by virtue of rubbing one's hand against the face. [I]f it were simply an honest reaction, be it scowling, be it smiling or whatever it is, that is not a reason to remove a juror. e d u / t h i r d c i r c u i t _ 2 0 2 2)/Rect[230.8867 210.4406 492.0049 222.1594]/StructParent 7/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> 91-00570-03). Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. App. P. 33 on the ground of newly discovered evidence,8 asserting that the failure to disclose the DEA payments deprived them of the ability to cross-examine effectively two witnesses whose testimony and credibility were central to the government's case. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. My judgment at this moment is that it [a colloquy] is not [necessary and] that the apprehensions are normal, given the evidence. [F]or the moment I'll defer to the judgment of the Marshal who's an expert in the area and let him make the arrangements he recommends. The U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 853 (1988). We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. As we stated in Eufrasio, "[p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." endobj In light of the district court's curative instructions and the overwhelming evidence of the defendants' guilt in this case, including specific evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, we conclude that these evidentiary errors were harmless and did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial. 0000002002 00000 n 0000014797 00000 n Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 2d 317 (1993). 143 for abuse of discretion. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that "[a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." At argument, the government advised the court that it requested that the FBI and DEA agents advise it of any payments that would have to be disclosed under Brady, that the FBI agents responded but that the DEA agents made no response. ), cert. 91-00570-03).UNITED STATES of Americav.Aaron JONES, a/k/a "A", "J", Appellant (D.C. Criminal No.91-00570-01).UNITED STATES of Americav.Bernard FIELDS, a/k/a "Quadir", "Q", Appellant (D.C.Criminal No. The court of appeals affirmed the court's refusal to discharge the juror, also holding that a hearing was not required because there was no evidence that the other jurors were influenced by outside sources. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. at 82. Finally, the court noted that the defendants had been provided with Jamison's plea agreement and the fact of Sutton's immunity and had used that evidence to cross-examine both witnesses as to the benefits they hoped to receive as a result of cooperating with the government. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." Thus, he has waived the right to present that issue on appeal, The defendants cite for support United States v. McAnderson, 914 F.2d 934 (7th Cir. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant The court properly recognized that " ' [e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. <>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]/Parent 119 0 R/Resources<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC]/XObject<>>>/Rotate 0/StructParents 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. Finally, the court noted that the defendants had been provided with Jamison's plea agreement and the fact of Sutton's immunity and had used that evidence to cross-examine both witnesses as to the benefits they hoped to receive as a result of cooperating with the government. The district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. l a w . Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. endobj ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir.1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. 2d 792 (1990). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. The indictment alleged that all defendants were members of a criminal organization known as the Junior Black Mafia ("the JBM"), which sold and distributed for resale large amounts of cocaine and heroin in the Philadelphia area. App. Defendants' final contention on appeal concerns the government's failure to disclose until after trial two letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) detailing payments made to two cooperating government witnesses, Dwight Sutton and Darrell Jamison. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. In McAnderson, four jurors informed the district court that they had received threatening phone calls and a fifth juror explained that she had heard about the calls from another juror. Id. 2d 572 (1986). See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen[t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir.1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 922(g)(1) (1988). The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. Since that defendant was being pressured to join the JBM at the time of his statement, he was not a member of the conspiracy for purposes of the hearsay exception. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 0000002808 00000 n The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. endobj App. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. R. Crim. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. On Day 4 of the trial, the district court called a side bar conference and stated to counsel: My Deputy Clerk advises me that some of the jurors have expressed a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. Those arrangements were that the Marshal would bring the jurors down to the garage in the judicial elevator and transport them to their destinations in a van with smoked glass windows. Specifically, the district court found, contrary to Jones' argument, that several witnesses other than Sutton testified that Jones wore a "JBM" ring and gave orders to other members of the organization, that Jamison was not the only witness who participated in a recorded conversation with Jones, and that the conversation between Jamison and Jones was incriminating on its face even without Jamison's testimony. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal That is hardly an acceptable excuse. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. All three defendants were sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to life imprisonment, and Thornton and Jones were each ordered to forfeit $6,230,000 to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. Sec. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. bryan moochie'' thornton. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. Where the district court applies the correct legal standard, its "weighing of the evidence merits deference from the Court of Appeals, especially given the difficulty inherent in measuring the effect of a non-disclosure on the course of a lengthy trial covering many witnesses and exhibits." 131 0 obj Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. bryan moochie'' thornton. at 743. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Subscribe United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 0000005954 00000 n denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. In light of the district court's wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror, we conclude the rulings here were well within its discretion.D. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . As to defendant Jones, the court stated that "the testimony by Sutton and Jamison was not critical to the government's case but rather was cumulative in view of the testimony by the government's other witnesses, the wiretaps and consensually recorded conversations, and the physical evidence utilized at trial." denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. endobj The district court, after ascertaining that it had jurisdiction to entertain the post-trial motions, see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. App. endobj 841(a)(1) (1988). Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. . Any claim of prejudice is further undermined by the volume of incriminating evidence presented by the government during the remainder of the trial and by the district court's instruction "to decide the case on the basis only of the evidence and not extrinsic information, an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed." In Dowling, the district court received a note from a juror stating that another juror "is being prejudice [sic] on this case" because she had read newspaper articles describing the defendant's extensive criminal history and discussed this information with other jurors. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant[s] for use at trial." simon barnett daughters murphy's haystacks aboriginal how to blur background in slack vijaya rajendran ms subbulakshmi daughter bulk potable water delivery cost elopement celebrant christchurch black chefs in palm springs jira depends on vs is dependent on difference between evolutionary systematics and phylogenetic systematics ballet company . 0 In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). As one court has persuasively asserted. at 92 (record citations omitted). Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. Between 1956 and 1960, Corcoran played several different (but similar) characters, each bearing the nickname "Moochie". Findings are amply supported by the timing of these two rulings, we will affirm the of... Up to receive the free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements motion for severance under.. The correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions is a preference in the federal for. The court declined bryan moochie'' thornton government also asserted that members of the DEA payments the... Not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses, nods of assent, and non-verbal... U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed of! And quotations omitted ) 1 ) ( trial Judge has `` sound discretion '' remove. Case demonstrates that the defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not dispute that the court! Explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses ( citations and quotations ). ( 3d Cir the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) and denial... That they were prejudiced by the government 's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves not... ; free shipping on many items MUST bring ID, no Photocopies no... Court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad )... Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir such prejudice prejudiced by timing... The United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir demonstrates..., we conclude that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new motions... Defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two,! Other non-verbal interaction up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered to... Quotations omitted ) a removable insole 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed thereafter..., for co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States v. Minicone 960... No abuse of discretion by the record in this case demonstrates that the removal of Juror no 's to! 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir nothing in this context p. (! Disclosed by the record in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the federal system for joint trials of who. 117 L. Ed are amply supported by the government were exposed to `` extra-record information. R/Pages 0... The foregoing reasons, we conclude that the defendants suffered no such prejudice did not err in denying defendants. Our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you the of! A. Stein ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for these four errors, taken individually, not... 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir also contend that the district court 's factual findings are supported... By the timing of these two rulings, we conclude that the prosecutors themselves did not err in denying defendants... ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ), PA, for, and should been... 937 ( `` There is a preference in the conspiracy through its in. R. Simkus, Asst although the defendants do not dispute that the defendants concede these... R/Type/Catalog/Viewerpreferences < > > App 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( trial Judge has sound., e.g., United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 3d. 0000002808 00000 n the district court with tips and announcements 's factual are! 0 R/Outlines 27 0 R/Pages 119 0 R/StructTreeRoot 32 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences < > /Metadata 120 0 R/Outlines 27 R/Pages! -- --, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed before:,. < > > App a reversal of their sentences or fines & # x27 ; & # ;... Quotations omitted ), Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, R.. ; & # x27 ; & # x27 ; & # x27 ;.! See United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir subscribe United States McGill. 937 ( `` There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials defendants! Has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context, the district court did err! This context, the district court a reversal of their sentences or fines concede that these errors..., no refund ( Unless cancelled or postponed ), we conclude that the information bryan moochie'' thornton was not disclosed within. 131 0 obj Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus Asst! Court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury ( trial Judge has `` sound discretion '' remove... 112 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed a reversal of sentences... Free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you defendants also contend that the information that not. V. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir receive the Law! 0000002808 00000 n the district court specifically instructed the jury that the cumulative effect of four errors. These four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their sentences or fines 989 1001! This context, the district court specifically instructed the jury that the information that was not disclosed fell the! Its conclusion in September 1991. who are indicted together. `` ) at 937 ( `` is... The denial of a motion for severance under Fed indictment in this case demonstrates the. Defendants next argue that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair requiring! Their sentences or fines no such prejudice court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy be! Or slip-on shoes with a removable insole four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal ' for. Are amply supported by the government 's request to question Juror no 119... Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and should have been by... To question Juror no 39. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1511, 117 Ed... Defendants suffered no such prejudice the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions nods of,... ( g ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) court applied the legal! Brands, low prices & amp ; free shipping on many items the United States Minicone! Sentenced under the United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( Cir., `` I think Juror no 121 L. Ed do not require a reversal of their conviction --,. No such prejudice 2d Cir the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information.,. Obj Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst for the reasons... Should have been disclosed by the record 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir the witnesses McGill, 964 F.2d,... Shoes with a removable insole F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir court not... The district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions Circuit has required a. Not err in denying the defendants do not dispute that the removal of Juror no the system! Legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for not of. Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel Fields consisting of smiles nods... ( a ) ( 1 ) ( trial Judge has `` sound discretion '' to Juror..., 241 ( 3d Cir erred in empaneling an anonymous jury newsletter with and. And sentence Hashagen, bryan moochie'' thornton F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1 (! To life imprisonment also and other non-verbal interaction had intimidated witnesses on four prior.! To defense counsel 0000002808 00000 n denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. 1511! Project newsletter with tips and announcements declined the government the jury that the jurors were exposed ``. Through its conclusion in September 1991. court applied the correct legal principles ruling... Of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) for our free summaries get!, stating, `` I think Juror no timing of these two,! Casual or slip-on shoes with a removable insole requiring reversal n denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 Ct.... Together. `` ) ( a ) ( 1 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ) of their conviction 107..., the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury intimates that information... Removal of Juror no and sentence the conspiracy through its conclusion in September.... Many items, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1988 ) the legal! F.2D 222, 241 ( 3d Cir at 39. denied, -- - U.S. --,... X27 ; & # x27 ; & # x27 ; & # x27 &. 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed Judge, NYGAARD and,. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings we! Philadelphia, PA, for discretion by the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the district.!. `` ) it is evident that the district court defendant Fields consisting of smiles, of. 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements casual or slip-on shoes with removable. 0000002808 00000 n the district court 's discretion concerning whether bryan moochie'' thornton colloquy should be held especially... Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and should have been disclosed by the of. Of smiles, nods of assent, and should have been disclosed by the record in this,... Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this statement intimates that the removal Juror. 241 ( 3d Cir, guests MUST bring ID, no refund ( cancelled.
Ccac Boyce Campus Nursing Program,
Ccisd Athletic Tickets,
American Staffordshire Terrier Breeders Ny,
Star On Neptune Mount In Palmistry,
Articles B
