Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: CR-23-1-0000421
Date: 2025-04-03
Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Mwanza Serge Mutombo
Karolina Visic and Brontë Willitts for the Crown
Misha Feldmann for Mr. Mutombo
Heard: January 30, 2025
Reasons for Sentence
Corrick
Overview
[1] Mwanza Mutombo pleaded guilty before me on September 3, 2024 to one count of aggravated assault. The matter was adjourned to December 5, 2024 for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. I was unavailable on December 5 as I was at that time in the middle of a jury trial. I adjourned the matter to January 30, 2025, at which time I heard the sentencing submissions of counsel. I adjourned the matter of sentence until after I had heard the sentencing submissions with respect to Mr. Mutombo’s co-accused, Kane Underhill. Mr. Mutombo appears today for sentencing.
Facts
[2] The facts were set out in detail in an Agreed Statement of Facts, filed as Exhibit 1. On August 19, 2022, Mr. Mutombo and Mr. Underhill viciously assaulted Roch Lalonde, a 52-year-old man. Mr. Mutombo stabbed Mr. Lalonde seventeen times. During Mr. Mutombo’s attack, Mr. Underhill struck Mr. Lalonde twice with a steel pole. The two men left Mr. Lalonde for dead. Mr. Lalonde survived the attack but died on February 16, 2023 of unrelated causes.
[3] The assault took place in Ireland Park at Bathurst Street and Queens Quay West. In August 2022, Mr. Underhill was living in a tent in that park. Mr. Mutombo was also staying in that tent. On August 19, 2022, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Mr. Lalonde was also in the park. He was homeless and was looking for a place to smoke drugs. He had spent the previous night sleeping near the park and asked some people in the park if they had seen his suitcase. He eventually settled near a rock monument in the park to smoke crack cocaine.
[4] Mr. Mutombo arrived in the park at approximately 2:45 a.m. At that time, Mr. Underhill was in his tent. Some people in the park who knew Mr. Mutombo told him that there was a “weirdo” in the area, referring to Mr. Lalonde. Mr. Mutombo said that he would “take care of it.”
[5] Mr. Underhill and Mr. Mutombo went to the rock monument to confront Mr. Lalonde. Mr. Mutombo told Mr. Lalonde that they did not want him there. Mr. Lalonde questioned Mr. Mutombo’s authority to tell him to leave and continued to smoke crack and pay attention to his cell phone.
[6] Mr. Mutombo tried to take Mr. Lalonde’s phone and began stabbing him. Mr. Underhill left the area for less than a minute, and then returned with a steel pole. Mr. Underhill struck Mr. Lalonde twice at the top of his spine with the steel pole. Mr. Underhill picked up Mr. Lalonde’s cell phone, which had fallen, left it on a rock, and left the area while Mr. Mutombo continued to stab Mr. Lalonde. Mr. Mutombo left the area about ten seconds after Mr. Underhill.
[7] The entire assault lasted less than one minute. Approximately two minutes after Mr. Mutombo left, Mr. Lalonde was able to drag himself using a shopping cart for support out from the rock monument to a parking lot on Lakeshore Blvd. where he eventually collapsed. He was found in critical condition shortly thereafter by a security guard.
[8] Mr. Mutombo was arrested on August 26, 2022, when he and Mr. Underhill returned to Ireland Park.
[9] Mr. Lalonde’s injuries were detailed in an Agreed Statement of Facts, marked as Exhibit 2. He sustained 17 stab wounds to his upper body. One wound penetrated his liver resulting in a severe liver injury. He was stabbed in the upper abdomen, right elbow, left armpit, right upper chest, posterior neck, left upper trap, upper right back, left shoulder, mid-back, and left abdomen. All of the stab wounds were closed with surgical staples. He required blood transfusions due to blood loss. He also required surgery to repair a wound in his abdominal wall.
[10] In addition to the stab wounds, Mr. Lalonde also suffered injuries to his lungs, including pulmonary contusion and injuries that required the placement of tubes around his lungs. His left scapular bone, right fifth rib, thoracic vertebrae, and skull were fractured. He sustained scalp lacerations, a collapsed bladder, paraspinal musculature hematoma and hemorrhages in the right femoral artery and in the subcutaneous tissues of the right groin.
[11] Mr. Lalonde remained in the Intensive Care Unit until September 3, 2022. He was ultimately discharged from hospital on September 16, 2022. He died in Vancouver on February 15, 2023 from unrelated causes.
Positions of the Parties
[12] Ms. Visic, on behalf of the Crown, submits that the appropriate disposition in this case is a prison sentence of ten years less the amount of time Mr. Mutombo has spent in pre-sentence custody. She also seeks a forfeiture order, a DNA order, and a life-time weapons prohibition order.
[13] Mr. Feldmann, on behalf of Mr. Mutombo, submits that a sentence of six years is appropriate given Mr. Mutombo’s background, his guilty plea, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody. Mr. Feldmann takes no issue with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
Mr. Mutombo’s Personal Circumstances
[14] Mr. Mutombo is 39 years old. He comes from a disadvantaged childhood. He was born in the Congo and lived there until coming to Canada with a family friend at the age of 10. Both of his parents died before he was five years old, and he was raised by his grandmother. As a child in the Congo, he experienced the strife of civil war, hearing gunshots and seeing soldiers in the streets. He left the Congo to escape the civil war. He made a refugee claim when he arrived in Canada and became a permanent resident.
[15] He has lived on his own since he was 16. He has completed high school. Since leaving school, he has worked as a labourer and in warehouses. He last worked in 2018. He has supported himself on public assistance. He has not had stable housing for some time and has been in and out of the shelter system in Toronto. At the time of the offence, he was living in a tent in Ireland Park. He is estranged from his family and has no supports in the community.
[16] Since coming to Canada, Mr. Mutombo has experienced racism in the education system, the criminal justice system and in daily life. He has had difficulty coping with these experiences as he never had to deal with them when he lived in the Congo.
[17] Mr. Mutombo has a longstanding serious drug and alcohol problem. He told the author of the pre-sentence report that he began drinking in grade nine. His abuse of alcohol increased after high school and he reported that prior to his arrest, he would drink all day until he passed out. He reported to Dr. Gojer, who prepared a psychiatric report about Mr. Mutombo (Exhibit 7), that he has suffered blackouts from alcohol use.
[18] He began smoking marijuana when he was 17 years old. He has also used cocaine, crystal meth, ecstasy, Percocets, and mushrooms. In the five years prior to this offence, he used drugs every day. He told the pre-sentence report writer that he does not know if he can remain sober once he is released into the community. Mr. Mutombo was under the influence of both cocaine and alcohol when he assaulted Mr. Lalonde. He has never had any treatment for his substance and alcohol addictions.
[19] Mr. Mutombo has the following criminal record.
2012-10-11: Assault causing bodily harm
328 days pre-sentence custody, 2 years probation2012-11-26: Fail to comply - probation
50 days pre-sentence custody + 70 days jail, 3 years probation2012-11-26: Fail to comply - probation
50 days pre-sentence custody + 70 days jail2020-10-16: (1) assault (2) assault (3) assault
(1) 10 months pre-sentence custody + suspended sentence, 2 yrs. probation
(2) suspended sentence, 2 yrs. probation
(3) suspended sentence, 2 yrs. probation2021-09-28: (1) assault (2) possess sch. I substance
(1) 3 days pre-sentence custody + suspended sentence, 2 yrs. probation
(2) suspended sentence, 2 yrs. probation2021-10-14: assault
7.5 months pre-sentence custody + suspended sentence, 12 mths. probation
[20] The transcripts of the proceedings that resulted in the assault convictions on Mr. Mutombo’s criminal record were filed as Exhibits #4a, 4c, 4d, and 4e.
[21] The 2012 conviction for assault causing bodily harm involved an assault on Mr. Mutombo’s girlfriend. The complainant stated that she and Mr. Mutombo were arguing when he, “simply went nuts, shaking her head onto the floor and kicking her.” The complainant sustained a swollen jaw, red marks on her neck, blood in her ear and a chipped front tooth.
[22] The October 2020 convictions for assault arose from an incident that took place in December 2017 and involved an assault on another intimate partner of Mr. Mutombo’s, who was ten weeks pregnant at the time. Mr. Mutombo had been drinking. He put the complainant in a chokehold, kicked her dog and smashed her head into an elevator wall. He chased her as she ran away, grabbed her from behind, causing her to fall. He punched her in the face causing her mouth to bleed. When the complainant’s father and brother tried to intervene, Mr. Mutombo assaulted them.
[23] On September 28, 2021, Mr. Mutombo pleaded guilty to assaulting a different intimate partner on May 15, 2021. He became upset at how the complainant was dressed. He grabbed her by the throat with both hands and squeezed. She was gasping for air. He then dragged her around her room and punched her in the face and nose. The complainant sustained scratches on her throat, arms, and face, as well as a bloody nose. Mr. Mutombo was arrested at the scene. He was found in possession of four small pieces of crack cocaine and a knife.
[24] Finally, the October 2021 conviction for assault related to an incident that occurred on May 9, 2020. He and another man, who were both residents in a rooming house, were drinking and smoking marijuana throughout the evening. A disagreement erupted between them, and Mr. Mutombo punched the complainant in the face with a closed fist. The complainant suffered an injury to his nose.
[25] Mr. Mutombo reported to Dr. Gojer that he has been stabbed on two occasions, once in 2018 and again in 2021. These incidents have made him wary of others. He has carried a weapon since 2019 for protection.
[26] Dr. Gojer opined that Mr. Mutombo suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. As a result, he is hypersensitive and hypervigilant. This, together with his alcohol and drug use, and constant possession of a weapon, increases the risk that he will act impulsively and violently.
[27] The pre-sentence report author noted that Mr. Mutombo does not recognize the severity of his anger. This is concerning because his lack of problem-solving skills in difficult situations has caused him to act out violently in the past.
Impact On the Victim
[28] Although no victim impact statement was filed, the effect this assault had on Mr. Lalonde can be discerned from the video recorded interview police officers conducted with him on September 12, 2022, almost a month after the assault. Various excerpts from that interview were filed as part of Exhibit 6 on sentence.
[29] Mr. Lalonde described the terror he felt. He was unable to defend himself. He saw only human forms that he thought were trying to kill him. He did not know why. He thought they wanted to steal his cell phone. He described Mr. Mutombo’s stabbing motions as so rapid and repeated that he did not see the knife other than when Mr. Mutombo started to assault him. Mr. Lalonde felt his lung collapse and thought that he was going to die. He became emotional describing the experience to the officers, breaking down in tears at points.
[30] I have already described in detail the numerous serious injuries inflicted on Mr. Lalonde by Mr. Mutombo and Mr. Underhill. He was hospitalized for nearly a month. The fractures he sustained limited his mobility for a time. Fortunately, he regained his mobility before he was discharged from hospital.
Governing Sentencing Principles
[31] In determining the fit sentence for Mr. Mutombo, I am governed by the sentencing principles set out in the Criminal Code.
[32] The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing sentences with objectives that include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, the separation of offenders from society, when necessary, the promotion of responsibility in the offender, and the acknowledgement of the harm that criminal activity does to victims and to our community. The sentence that I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[33] Furthermore, the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. It should also be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
[34] I turn now to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case. First the aggravating circumstances.
Mr. Mutombo’s criminal record includes six prior convictions for violent offences – five for assault and one for assault causing bodily harm. The circumstances of some of those prior offences bear similarities to this offence. Mr. Mutombo had been drinking or using drugs at the time of the assaults. There was a high degree of gratuitous violence involved in the assaults, indicating a lack of control on Mr. Mutombo’s part. In his remarks to me on January 30, he said that he was out of control when he assaulted Mr. Lalonde.
At the time of the offence, Mr. Mutombo was subject to three separate probation orders, all of which required him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. One of the probation orders prohibited him from possessing any weapons. Mr. Mutombo acknowledged to Dr. Gojer that he carries a knife to protect himself.
Mr. Lalonde was a vulnerable victim. He was a homeless man with mental health and substance abuse problems minding his own business in a public park.
Mr. Mutombo used a weapon to assault Mr. Lalonde.
The attack on Mr. Lalonde was unprovoked. Mr. Mutombo took it upon himself to “take care of” Mr. Lalonde, after being told by friends that there was a “weirdo” in the area.
Mr. Lalonde was in no position to defend himself from a sudden attack by two people. It was very dark at the rock monument. Mr. Lalonde was seated when he was set upon. He had no weapon.
The level of violence perpetrated by Mr. Mutombo was extreme, even frenzied, as evidenced by the large number of stab wounds inflicted on different parts of Mr. Lalonde’s body in less than a minute.
Instead of rendering assistance to Mr. Lalonde, Mr. Mutombo fled the scene, abandoning a gravely injured Mr. Lalonde in a dark and secluded part of the park.
Mr. Mutombo has an acknowledged serious drug and alcohol addiction that remains unaddressed despite several opportunities he has had to do so through previous probation orders. His use of drugs and alcohol have contributed to his criminal behaviour in the past.
The physical and emotional consequences of this attack on Mr. Lalonde were severe. It is clear from the video excerpts in Exhibit 6 that Mr. Mutombo and Mr. Underhill terrified Mr. Lalonde that night. He was unable to describe the incident to police a month later without breaking down in tears.
[35] I have also considered the following mitigating circumstances.
Mr. Mutombo has pleaded guilty. Although it is not an early plea, coming after Mr. Lalonde testified at a preliminary hearing, it is still an acceptance of responsibility. His acceptance of responsibility is tempered somewhat by his explanation to the pre-sentence report writer and to the court that he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs and was not in control when he assaulted Mr. Lalonde. Nevertheless, his guilty plea is mitigating in that it saved the time and resources that would have been necessary to conduct a trial.
Mr. Mutombo had a disadvantaged and unstable childhood, having lost both of his parents as a young child, living through civil war, and emigrating to a new country. It is not difficult to imagine, as Mr. Feldmann suggested, Mr. Mutombo’s trajectory from his childhood to living in a homeless encampment, disengaged from society.
I have considered the factors set out in the decision of R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, in mitigation of Mr. Mutombo’s sentence. I accept that systemic racism in Toronto exists, and that Mr. Mutombo has been affected by it in the ways indicated in the pre-sentence report.
Having said that, there must be “some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue.” Without such a connection, mitigation “becomes a discount based on the offender’s colour.” Our law does not recognize such a discount: Morris, at para. 97. There must be some link between Mr. Mutombo’s experience with systemic racism and the offence he has committed to mitigate his sentence. The link need not be causal, but there must be some connection to mitigate Mr. Mutombo’s moral culpability. On the record before the court, this connection is absent.
While in pre-sentence custody, Mr. Mutombo completed the “Urban Rez Solutions” program, and the Black Employment Support Program, showing some motivation for rehabilitation.
Mr. Mutombo has been incarcerated at the Toronto South Detention Centre since August 27, 2022. Lockdown records from the institution indicate that between August 27, 2022 and January 23, 2025, Mr. Mutombo had been locked down on 252 days or 29% of the time. All of the lockdowns, except six, were due to staff shortages in the institution. During lockdowns, inmates are given thirty minutes out of their cells to use the phone, to shower or to get fresh air in the yard, although these “privileges” may also be cancelled.
Despite repeated judicial calls for the adequate staffing of correctional institutions to permit inmates to live in humane conditions that allow them to shower and to have access to fresh air, this problem persists: see a summary of cases in R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188, at para. 29.
I accept that as a result of the lockdowns, Mr. Mutombo has experienced particularly harsh conditions of pre-sentence detention, which warrants mitigation: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344; R. v. Brown, 2025 ONCA 164.
Range of Sentence and Applicable Principles
[36] Aggravated assault carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years in prison: s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code.
[37] Ms. Visic referred me to several decisions in support of her position that ten years in prison is the appropriate disposition. I have reviewed them all but will not refer to all of them in detail. As I reviewed them, I was reminded of Chief Justice Lamer’s caution that, “… the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction:” R. v. M. (C.A.), at para. 92.
[38] In 2011, Justice Code established a sentencing range for serious assaults in R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677. He described sentencing cases for serious assaults as falling into three ranges. At the highest range were cases that involved recidivists with serious criminal records or unprovoked or premeditated assaults with no suggestion of self-defence or consent. These cases generally attracted sentences of four to six years in prison: Tourville, at para. 30.
[39] In 2019, Justice Code clarified that the range of sentence for cases of the most serious assault offences was wider than he had described it in Tourville, with the top of the range being eight years in prison: R. v. Seerattan, 2019 ONSC 4340, at para. 36.
[40] Sentences imposed for aggravated assault vary widely depending on the brutality of the assault, the injuries to the victim and their ongoing impact on the victim’s life, the use of a weapon, the premeditation involved, the motive for the attack and the individual circumstances of the offender. I agree with Justice Downes, who wrote, “it is clear from even a cursory glance at the authorities that the range of sentence for cases of aggravated assault involving serious injury is wide to the point of impracticality:” R. v. Pangan, 2014 ONCJ 327, at para. 38.
[41] In R. v. Clymer, 2017 ONCJ 432, Justice West imposed concurrent nine-year sentences on an offender who had stabbed two people, one six times, the other three times. Both victims were grievously injured. The attack was unprovoked and committed against unarmed people. The offender was 34 years old. He had substance abuse issues that aggravated a longstanding problem he had with rage. He had an extensive criminal record that included two convictions for assault and one for armed robbery. He had not previously been sentenced to a penitentiary sentence.
[42] Like Mr. Mutombo, the offender had pleaded guilty but had not accepted full responsibility for the crime. The offender blamed the victims. Mr. Mutombo blames the fact that he was not in control when he assaulted Mr. Lalonde because of his alcohol and drug consumption.
[43] The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld sentences of 7.5 years imposed on two young men who were convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon: R. v. Kanthasamy, 2007 ONCA 90. The offenders were 20 years old at the time of the offence. One offender had no criminal record and the other had a conviction for theft under. They attacked an unarmed complainant with machetes severing his finger and inflicting 21 or 22 cuts all over his body. The sentencing judge noted that as a result of the attack, the complainant’s life was forever changed for the worse: R. v. Kanthasamy, [2005] O.J. No. 2708, at para. 67.
[44] There are some similarities and some differences between this case and Mr. Mutombo’s. In both cases, the attack was perpetrated by two people on an unarmed victim. In both cases, a weapon was used. In Kanthasamy, unlike the present case, the attack was planned and premeditated. The offenders did not plead guilty or take responsibility for the offence. One offender had no criminal record. The second offender had only a conviction for theft under.
[45] The sentencing judge indicated that he would have imposed substantially longer sentences on the offenders but for the fact that they were young, without criminal records and had rehabilitative potential: Kanthasamy, at para. 71.
[46] The offender in the case of R. v. Pangan pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, robbery, and possession of stolen property. He stomped, kicked, and beat a man on three separate occasions, stole his shoes and wallet, and left him for dead on the ground. The victim was hospitalized for four months and suffered a traumatic brain injury.
[47] Like Mr. Mutombo, Pangan was an alcoholic, who also used illicit drugs. Alcohol consumption played a role in the assault that Pangan committed as it did in the assault Mr. Mutombo committed. Like Mr. Mutombo, Pangan had been previously ordered by the court to attend addiction counselling sessions. Like Mr. Mutombo, Pangan never completed them. Also, like Mr. Mutombo, Pangan had a criminal record that included convictions for several assaults but had never received a penitentiary sentence. He was sentenced to 8½ years.
[48] A final case with some similarities to Mr. Mutombo’s case is R. v. Bolan, Jocko, Wilson, 2022 ONSC 2581. In that case, the three accused men pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence. The accused entered the apartment of the victim each armed with a weapon – a baseball bat, a crowbar or tire iron, and metal rods. They beat the victim and left him for dead in retaliation for his role as a drug enforcer who took advantage of vulnerable drug users. The victim suffered serious, long-lasting injuries, including a traumatic brain injury.
[49] The accused men were in their 30’s. They had criminal records, but only one accused had been convicted of crimes of violence. Two of the accused were of First Nations Heritage. They all had troubled childhoods. The sentencing judge found that they were all equally responsible for the assault.
[50] Each accused received a sentence of seven years in prison. The sentencing judge noted that, “the jurisprudence calls for a sentence range of 5 to 10 years for the offence of aggravated assault:” Bolan, Jocko, Wilson, at para. 39.
[51] The circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case. Sentencing is not a precise science. It is instead a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender. Despite this, prior decisions assist in determining the principles that must guide my decision.
[52] What is clear from the jurisprudence is that in cases of aggravated assault where the victim suffers grievous injuries, denunciation and deterrence must be given prominence as sentencing objectives.
Determination of a Fit Sentence
[53] Sentencing ranges are helpful guides for sentencing judges. They are not “straitjackets” depriving judges of their ability to impose sentences that reflect both the circumstances of the offence and of the offender: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64. A fit sentence is one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of Mr. Mutombo.
[54] This was a cowardly, vicious two-on-one attack on an unarmed man who had no chance to defend himself. The level of violence was extreme and gratuitous. It was simply a matter of luck that Mr. Lalonde did not die in that park that night. He suffered severe injuries. The gravity of this crime is very serious.
[55] Mr. Mutombo’s moral blameworthiness for this crime is high. He told his friends that he would “look after” Mr. Lalonde, and he and Mr. Underhill set out to do that. Mr. Mutombo was armed with a knife. He was on probation at the time of the attack, having been convicted of assault ten months earlier. The sentences he has previously received for assault have done nothing to deter him or to convince him to deal with the issues that underlay his violence. He has been given several opportunities to do so. For this reason, specific deterrence is also an important sentencing objective in determining the appropriate sentence.
[56] I agree with Mr. Feldmann that the principle of restraint must be considered. Mr. Mutombo has not previously been sentenced to a penitentiary term. However, his failure to deal with his alcohol and drug addictions, together with his mental state of hypervigilance and hypersensitivity and reliance on carrying a weapon to protect himself pose an unacceptable risk to public safety and he must be separated from society.
[57] I have also considered the objective of rehabilitation. Mr. Mutombo has previously shown some signs that he is capable of living a crime-free life. He has been employed. He has a high school education. But his prospects for rehabilitation are guarded given his own admission that he may not be able to maintain sobriety once he is released into the community. Without that, Mr. Mutombo is likely to reoffend and to reoffend violently.
[58] After considering all of the circumstances of this case, in my view the appropriate sentence is nine years, less the time he has spent in pretrial custody. This is a significant prison sentence that reflects the serious crime he has committed and his high degree of moral blameworthiness. It also addresses the applicable sentencing principles and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
[59] Mr. Mutombo is entitled to credit of 1,428 days for the 952 days he has spent in pretrial custody between August 26, 2022 and today, in accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. By my calculation, nine years is equal to 3,285 days. After crediting him 1,428 days, Mr. Mutombo has 1,857 days or 61 months left to serve.
Ancillary Orders
[60] There will be an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Mutombo from possessing any weapons for life and an order pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Mutombo provide a sample of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.
[61] I have also signed the forfeiture order that Ms. Visic provided me.
[62] The victim fine surcharge will be waived.
Corrick
Released: April 3, 2025