SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

v.

SIAVASH NOROUZIAN

R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE A. LONDON-WEINSTEIN on February 21, 2020, at TORONTO, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

J. Mitschele Counsel for the Crown A. Bystrzycki Counsel for the Crown G. Lafontaine Counsel for Siavash Norouzian

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

ENTERED ON PAGE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1

Legend [sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error. (ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.

Transcript Ordered: February 26, 2020 Transcript Completed: March 17, 2020 Ordering Party Notified: March 17, 2020

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2020

R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T

LONDON-WEINSTEIN, J. (Orally):

So, Mr. Norouzian was charged with trafficking in heroin to an undercover officer on October 23rd and October 28th, 2013. Before the trial even began, Mr. Shahian Karaz, K-A-R-A-Z, pled guilty for his role in this matter in front of another judge. The trial proceeded on charges that Mr. Norouzian trafficked in heroin to an undercover officer on October 23rd and October 28th, 2013; that he possessed $200 in proceeds of crime on October 23rd, which was the police buy money from the first deal; and that he possessed heroin for the purposes of trafficking on October 28th.

The key witnesses for the Crown in relation to establishing the guilt of Mr. Norouzian were Detective Constable Daryl Gazey and Sergeant Sean Sutton. And Sean is S-E-A-N. Detective Constable Gazey was the undercover officer directly involved in the October 23rd and October 28th drug transactions. Sergeant Sutton arrested Mr. Norouzian on October 28th. The observations of Detective Constable Gazey are key to this case. Sergeant Sutton, too, was an important witness for the Crown. Sergeant Sutton testified that he retrieved heroin from Mr. Norouzian’s person upon arrest. However, Sergeant Sutton testified that his notes of his role in this investigation were lost. He made up an investigative action report two years after the arrest.

The defence points to the tunnel vision of the police and posits that Mr. Norouzian was an addict who was merely associating with Mr. Karaz as a result of his addiction. The Crown points to the fact that Mr. Norouzian was present at the first transaction as proof that Mr. Norouzian and Mr. Karaz were trafficking together. The Crown pointed to individual pieces of circumstantial evidence which arguably corroborate the version of events testified to by Detective Constable Gazey. The defence in turn contends that the forensic evidence demonstrates that Detective Constable Gazey misrepresented the truth in this trial.

A brief outline of the evidence in this matter is required to set the stage for the analysis of the issues in this trial. Initially, Mr. Norouzian was the sole target of the investigation based on an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip. That tip was received by Detective Constable Gazey. Detective Constable Gazey was a 31 year veteran of the Toronto Police Service. He testified that he received an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip that an individual named Siavash Norouzian, with a nickname Sia, was selling heroin in the Toronto area. Detective Constable Gazey said he was provided with two telephone numbers from the tipster. Both numbers were alleged to associated to Sia. The number 647-712-2326 was associated to a Samsung phone used in this case. The second number provided by the tipster was 647-712-7675, which is associated to the Blackberry phone in this case. The Samsung phone was seized from Mr. Karaz upon his arrest on October 23rd. Mr. Norouzian had another phone with him when he was arrested on October 28th. That number is 647-924-8023. Messages to that phone address Sia. At the time of the arrest of Mr. Karaz, Mr. Norouzian was a short distance away. He was driving the beige crossover belonging to Mr. Karaz. The Blackberry was in the vehicle, and $900 in cash was seized. However, a third phone which was not the Blackberry, and not the Samsung, was not retained by police for forensic examination. This phone, 647-924-8023, was listed in the property records of the Toronto East Detention Centre where Mr. Norouzian was initially housed after being processed; however, the phone which he had with him that day was not seized or preserved by police.

Detective Constable Gazey testified that at 4:20 p.m. on October 23rd, 2013 he placed a call to the Blackberry, 647-712-7675, using a police-issued phone, 416-938-6512. The officer testified that he spoke to a male he described as having a strong, thick Middle Eastern-type accent. The male answered to the name Sia. Detective Constable Gazey testified that he asked Sia if he was around at all. The two then purportedly had a conversation over the telephone where the police officer said his girlfriend knew Mr. Norouzian’s girl. The male then said he would call the officer back later, to wait for a call back, according to Detective Constable Gazey.

Detective Constable Gazey was certain about the time of the call being 4:20 p.m. Detective Constable Gazey testified that this 4:20 p.m. call was the one and only time he ever contacted the Blackberry phone. Every other contact according to the officer was with the Samsung. He testified he made up his notes at his desk immediately after the 4:20 p.m. call.

The forensic evidence from the telephone data dump in this case establishes conclusively that, despite the officer’s claim, there was no 4:20 p.m. call ever made to the Blackberry. Further, the officer testified that he received a call from the Samsung at 6:21 p.m. The officer testified that he immediately recognized the voice as being that of Sia. The reason he was able to make this recognition was, of course, because of the 4:20 p.m. call. The problem with this assertion, however, is that the 4:20 p.m. call never happened.

The 6:20 p.m. phone call, according to Detective Constable Gazey, had Sia offering to meet him tonight. The officer said he would take a “fully,” which is $200 worth of heroin. Sia, according to the officer, asked him if he knew the Esso station at Yonge and Finch. Sia asked him to call when he arrived. The officer said he would call him back. After the call concluded and he had written up his notes, the officer said that he advised the other officers in the drug squad that he had arranged a drug buy. At 6:51 p.m. a briefing was held at the drug squad headquarters. However, the forensic evidence derived from the data dump reveals that despite his evidence that he only ever called the Blackberry phone once at 4:20 p.m., in fact he called the Blackberry at 5:56 p.m. and again at 5:56:55. This evidence was in direct contradiction to the testimony of the officer who was certain that the only call to the Blackberry was at 4:20.

Further, according to him, Sia had instructed him in the 4:20 p.m. call to wait for Sia to call him back. However, the two calls to the Blackberry at 5:56 and 5:56:55 demonstrate that the officer was not waiting for Sia to call back. The reason he was not waiting is when he indicated that Sia at 4:20 p.m. told him to wait for a call back, he was not telling the truth. There would be no reason for the officer to place two calls to the Blackberry if he had been told to wait for a call back as he testified.

I have not been able to find that there was an initial early conversation which permitted later voice identification for the reasons outlined. As a result, when the officer volunteered in his evidence, before he could even be asked by the Crown, that he could identify Mr. Norouzian’s voice as a result of the earlier phone conversation due to its pitch, and tone, and flow of the conversation, I found that the officer was not being honest with the court.

The Crown in this case argues that the officer was simply mistaken about the time and that nothing turns on this issue. I do not accept that submission. First of all, the officer was very clear in his evidence that he recalled a 4:20 p.m. call. Secondly, he testified that the caller told him to wait for a call back; however, at 5:56 and 5:56:55 he’s not waiting for a call, but is placing calls to the Blackberry. This contradicts both his evidence that he was instructed to wait for a return call and his evidence that he only called the Blackberry once.

A further issue with the officer’s evidence was revealed through the data phone dump. The telephone number 416-884-5802 was also a Toronto Police Service subscribed mobile number. A call was placed to the Blackberry from this phone just 47 seconds after 6:00 p.m. At 6:02:04 p.m., another call was placed from this Toronto Police Service phone to the Blackberry. A text was also sent to the Blackberry which read, “Yo bro, need a link. Got paper?” At 6:04:44, a text was sent which read, “Know your girl, Sahba,” S-A-H-B-A. Detective Constable Gazey denied placing these texts. His evidence was that the only time he ever called the Blackberry was once at 4:20 p.m., which it has been well established never happened.

In his evidence at trial Detective Constable Gazey testified that a hand to hand heroin transaction happened between himself and Mr. Norouzian on October 23rd in the Metro after they met in the line-up of the adjoining Tim Hortons coffee shop. Mr. Karaz, according to the officer, was present but largely observing. The transaction occurred over a display of pears with Mr. Norouzian telling the officer, according to Detective Constable Gazey, where to put the money and depositing the heroin on the fruit and collecting the money.

I accept that Mr. Norouzian was present for this transaction, and the officer provided heroin to the exhibits officer upon completion of the transaction. The Crown contends that this meeting is uncontradicted. The Crown argues that the forensic data dumps in this case which contradict Detective Constable Gazey in other areas of his testimony do not take away from the fact that there was a meeting at the supermarket at 8:00 p.m. where a hand to hand transaction took place over pears. The Crown argues that there is no doubt the trafficking took place, and that Mr. Norouzian was either a principal or a party to that trafficking. The Crown argues that the officer can be believed on this point.

However, the problem with this submission, from my perspective, is that I would have to accept the officer’s version of events as to what transpired in the Metro. I accept that both Mr. Norouzian and Mr. Karaz were present, and that heroin was exchanged for cash. However, given my concerns about the evidence of this officer, I am unable to rely on his evidence as to what transpired in the Metro.

I found Detective Constable Gazey to be not credible as a witness. Mr. Norouzian’s mere presence at the time of the transaction does not make him a party to heroin trafficking. I am unable to accept any of the officer’s evidence as to what was said in the store or who did what. The reason I find that this officer’s evidence is neither credible nor reliable is that I found the officer’s testimony regarding what transpired up to and after this point was at odds with the forensic evidence. The second set of calls to the Blackberry from the Toronto Police Service phone, 416-884-5802, are proximal to the calls received by the Blackberry at 5:56 p.m. and 5:56:55.

Detective Constable Gazey testified that it was possible that another unknown officer made these calls and sent these other texts to the Blackberry without his knowledge. There was no evidence before me of any unknown officer who would be making calls to the same target in the same timeframe without notifying the undercover officer. This practice would also seem to me to be fraught with problems. The investigation could be compromised by this lack of cooperation and communication between officers, both who, unbeknownst to each other, are calling and texting the same target. It seems to me that officer safety could be severely compromised if officers were both calling and texting the same target without telling each other.

Further, I wondered how such a practice could have taken place in this case without it being disclosed. If there was an unknown officer texting and calling the same target during the same timeframe as Detective Constable Gazey, would this not have been disclosed at some point prior to the officer being confronted with this inconsistency to his sworn evidence in cross-examination?

I have rejected the suggestion by the officer that a hereto unknown officer was making calls and texts to the target. I have concluded that Detective Constable Gazey made those calls and the texts. However, his evidence before me was the only contact with the Blackberry was at 4:20 p.m. on October 23rd.

The text message, “Know your girl, Sahba” was sent at 6:04 p.m. The most reasonable inference I can draw is that this was sent by Detective Constable Gazey. In my view, this completely undermines the officer’s claim that he had a telephone conversation which he said occurred at 4:20 p.m. where he advised Sia that his girl knew Sia’s girl. The 6:04 p.m. text would be nonsensical and possibly alarming to the target if the earlier phone conversation had taken place.

The defence may be correct, and the officer may have been lying about having phone conversations which were actually text conversations to bolster the case by voice identification against Mr. Norouzian once it was apparent that he was not at the scene of the arrest on October 28th. I need not make that determination in order to find that I do not accept the evidence of the officer in regards to the texts which I have found that he sent and upon which he misled this court.

Detective Constable Gazey testified that when he spoke to Mr. Karaz and Mr. Norouzian in the Metro he said, “Shit, man, you guys scared me, man.” However, the forensic evidence from the data dump revealed that this was actually sent by text at 8:34 p.m. The officer did not testify to sending this text. It would incongruous to have sent this text after the fact if this was already said in the conversation. I’m not able to accept that the conversation happened in person by phone, given the text.

The officer also testified that the return call from the Samsung phone was received at 6:20 p.m. in relation to the first drug purchase on October 23rd, 2013. The evidence of the officer was that at 8:02 p.m. the drug transaction was completed. However, this is contradicted by his text message at 8:11 p.m. which was logically made before he left the Esso station.

With regard to the second transaction, the Samsung phone was used to call the phone which was associated to Mr. Norouzian at 4:36 p.m. It is possible that the phones were interchangeable between Mr. Norouzian and Mr. Karaz. However, the data also contradicts the officer’s assertion that the first contact was by way of a telephone call. The text message was, “U around tmrw?” And “you” is just the letter U, and tomorrow is “tmrw”. “Same.”

Again, the officer claims that this conversation took place over the phone and not by text. The officer claimed that he again recognized Sia’s voice. I was not able to accept that this conversation took place in person over the phone as opposed to by text. Notably, the name Sia did not appear in any of the text conversations between the officer and the trafficker. The officer called the Samsung at 5:19 p.m. but the call was unanswered. He called [indiscernible] again at around 5:26 p.m. A voice mail was left on the Samsung at 5:27 p.m. At 5:28 p.m., the Blackberry phone called Detective Constable Gazey’s phone, but it appears there was no conversation. At 5:29 p.m., the officer texted the Blackberry a text which said, “It’s Sean. Holler back, need the same.” Again, the officer claimed that this conversation happened in person and not by text. I did not accept that this conversation was in person over the phone and not by text.

Call logs revealed that there were four calls between the Norouzian phone and the Blackberry phone just after 1:00 a.m. on October 28th. The officer testified he had a conversation on October 28th at 4:41 p.m. with Sia. The conversation with the person answering the Samsung, according to Detective Gazey, was as follows:

--Hello. GAZEY: Yes, guy. You around later at 7:00? --Yes, I’m around. GAZEY: Same spot, the Esso? --Yeah, call me. You want a full again? GAZEY: Yeah, a full one. --Okay. Call me. GAZEY: Okay. I’ll call later.

The Samsung call log was consistent with Detective Constable Gazey’s evidence regarding the timing of this call. He did not testify to the efforts to connect with the Samsung and testified that the conversation took place as an outcoming call when it was actually incoming.

Detective Lourenco testified that at 7:10 p.m. he saw Siavash Norouzian in the beige crossover vehicle on Olive Avenue. At 7:11 p.m., Detective Lourenco observed Siavash Norouzian leave the Esso gas station and enter a beige crossover vehicle through the driver’s side door. Detective Lourenco did not see anyone with Mr. Norouzian.

Detective Constable Gazey testified that he received an incoming call at 7:21 p.m. from the Samsung. He testified that the caller was Siavash Norouzian and that they had a conversation as follows:

THE TRAFFICKER: Are you here? GAZEY: Almost. I’m right around the corner. THE TRAFFICKER: Call me when you get there. Just come to the intersection and my guy will call you. GAZEY: Okay. THE TRAFFICKER: Bye.

Detective Constable Gazey testified that the next call at 7:34 p.m. was another incoming call from the Samsung, that the caller was Siavash Norouzian, and that the following conversation ensued:

GAZEY: Hey. NOROUZIAN: Where are you? He is waiting. GAZEY: Sorry, bro. I had to stop for cash and take a piss. I’m almost there. I’ll call you in a couple. NOROUZIAN: Okay. Hurry. GAZEY: Okay.

Detective Constable Gazey testified that at 7:37 p.m. he made an outgoing call to the Samsung, that the calls was answered by Siavash Norouzian identified again by way of voice, and the following conversation ensued:

--Hello. GAZEY: Hey, I’m right here, across from the Green P sign by the swimming pool. --Okay. He’ll see you there. Stay there. GAZEY: I’m right here, bro. I’m not going anywhere. --Okay. He’ll see you. GAZEY: Okay. See you later.

Or, “See ya,” I can’t read my note there.

Detective Constable Gazey testified that at 7:39 p.m. he saw the lights of a vehicle approaching his vehicle from behind and that Shahian Karaz alighted from the car and entered into Detective Constable Gazey’s vehicle. Other officers did not observe a vehicle, but observed Karaz walking towards the car. His residence at 96 Park Home Drive was very close by.

The Samsung call log reveals that there was no 7:18 telephone call, despite the evidence of Detective Constable Gazey. The next call was an outgoing call from the Samsung to the phone which was known to be used by Mr. Norouzian. This was at 7:22:25 and lasted for one minute and eight seconds. The next call was at 7:23:59 from the Samsung to Gazey’s phone. That call lasted one minute and 19 seconds. At 7:34:31 p.m., the Samsung received a call from Gazey’s phone which lasted 53 seconds.

I agreed with the defence submission that the first call that evening was at 7:21 p.m. from the phone of Detective Constable Gazey to the Samsung. That call was only 21 seconds in length. Just 38 seconds later, the Samsung called a number associated to Mr. Norouzian. The fact that at 7:41 Mr. Karaz was arrested with the Samsung suggests that Mr. Karaz had the Samsung at the time of the 7:22:25 call. It also satisfies me that at 7:23:59 Mr. Karaz and not Mr. Norouzian had the conversation with Detective Constable Gazey for one minute and 19 seconds at 7:32:59, and who called Detective Constable Gazey at 7:34:31. Detective Constable Gazey testified that at 7:39, just two minutes after the 7:37 call, he saw vehicle lights behind and Mr. Karaz exit the vehicle. At 7:41, he was arrested. He was in possession of the Samsung. It is unlikely, therefore, in my view, that Mr. Norouzian was in possession of this Samsung only minutes earlier as testified to by Detective Constable Gazey.

Mr. Norouzian was arrested as he drove the crossover vehicle onto the driveway of 96 Park Home Avenue. Sergeant Sean Sutton arrested Mr. Norouzian. The Blackberry phone was in the cupholder in the centre console. A quantity of cash was also in the car, a leather wallet or purse was also in the vehicle. Sergeant Sutton testified that he lost the notes that he had made that evening. He made up a will state two years after the arrest. He testified that the drugs he seized were on Mr. Norouzian’s person, although he was not sure exactly where. He would have remembered if it had been in an unusual location like a sock. He could not recall the quantity of the drugs, but he did not think it was a large amount. He did not recall how the drugs were packaged.

Given the fact that a will state was not written until two years after the event, and Sergeant Sutton’s uncertainty as to which item of clothing he seized the heroin from, I felt it unsafe to rely on his evidence. Sergeant Sutton did not file a formal report to indicate that his notes were lost. He believed that he told the officer-in-charge of this investigation. None of those present at the scene noted the seizure of the drugs from Mr. Norouzian. Mr. Norouzian also had another cell phone with him. This was not seized by police.

A search warrant was executed at 96 Park Home Avenue. There was a large supply of drugs and the tools used to package drugs. There was one photograph of Mr. Norouzian in the one-bedroom apartment that had just one bed in it. There were several photographs of Mr. Karaz. Police did not collect mail or individual items which would identify the owner of the apartment, although a videotape was produced.

I have considered the whole of the evidence. Specifically, I found that the 4:20 p.m. call to the Blackberry did not occur. The Crown submits that nothing turns on this issue, that Detective Constable Gazey is simply mistaken about the time. I am not able to accept that this submission addresses the problems with the evidence of Detective Constable Gazey. If there was not a 4:20 p.m. call, there could be no voice recognition based on that call. Detective Constable Gazey spontaneously went out of his way to volunteer how it was that he recognized Mr. Norouzian’s voice in the later call. I have found that the earlier call never transpired.

Secondly, I did not accept that another unknown officer, never before disclosed by anyone else in this case, made the calls or sent the texts which Detective Constable Gazey denied making in this trial. I found that the officer misled the court on that issue. I also found that many of the texts so closely mirror the verbal conversations which were alleged to have taken place that if the phone conversations had taken place in the manner described, the texts would have appeared bizarre.

I also was not able to accept that Mr. Norouzian had the Samsung in his hands in the moments before Mr. Karaz was arrested when Detective Constable Gazey claimed to have a conversation with Mr. Norouzian. Given that the Samsung phone was located on Mr. Karaz upon arrest, I did not accept that Mr. Norouzian had the phone when Detective Constable Gazey claimed to be speaking to him right before the second buy.

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably bound up with the presumption of innocence. The burden of providing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the Crown at all times. It never shifts to the accused. A reasonable doubt is not based on sympathy or prejudice, but is based on reason and common sense. It is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence. It does not involve proof to an absolute certainty, nor is it based on an imaginary or frivolous doubt. If I think Mr. Norouzian is likely or probably guilty, I must acquit him. I must be sure before I convict Mr. Norouzian.

In this case, I think it is a probable, that Mr. Norouzian may have had some involvement in some aspect of the heroin trafficking operation with Mr. Karaz. He was present at the first buy and Mr. Karaz was calling him at various points in time during this period. My suspicions are not the test in law. I must be sure before I can find Mr. Norouzian guilty. Given my concerns about the credibility of Detective Constable Gazey, I am not satisfied that Mr. Norouzian is guilty of the trafficking charges or the possession of the buy money. I was also not certain that the heroin in this case was located on Mr. Norouzian’s person.

In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that it as reasonable an inference that the drugs were in the car with the cash and the Blackberry. They may or may not have been in plain view. The fact that Sergeant Sutton lost his notes, did not report them lost, and made up his will state two years after the arrest of Mr. Norouzian, plus his inability to recall where on Mr. Norouzian’s person he located the drugs, led me to conclude that it would be unsafe to rely on his evidence after the passage of so much time, in the absence of a contemporaneous note. Sergeant Sutton could also not recall if drugs were found in a leather purse in the vehicle. He was also in the residence after the arrest of Mr. Norouzian. He could not recall where Mr. Norouzian was when he entered the house. There were many drugs in the house itself. He could not recall how the drugs which he claimed to have seized from Mr. Norouzian were packaged. I would not expect the officer to have a clear memory of those details given the passage of time and the absence of notes.

The corollary of the lack of notes and memory, however, is that in my view it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of Sergeant Sutton for reasons related to the reliability of his memory as opposed to any findings in relation to credibility.

Mr. Norouzian is acquitted of all charges.

I would like to make some concluding observations. This trial unfolded in an unorthodox fashion. The forensic examination of the phones in this case advanced the truth-seeking function of the trial. The Crown did not initially conduct a forensic examination of the phones, nor were they required to. The initial examination of the phones conducted by someone employed by the defence was incomplete and unsatisfactory. The Crown initially objected to the admissibility of the phone records as they were first done. The Crown pointed out that the defence’s initial closing relied heavily on the phone records. In their initial closing submissions in writing, the Crown took the position that they had never agreed to the admissibility of the phone records. The Crown argued that the records were not accurate, reliable, or complete. Further, the Crown argued that admissibility of the phone records would violate the rule in Browne v. Dunn, (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), and finally that the records were not authenticated as required under s.31(1) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The defence in this case alleged that the undercover officer misled the court. The Crown pointed out that this type of serious allegation should not be made on the back of incomplete, unreliable evidence. I agreed with these submissions. I also felt it necessary for me to have a reliable forensic record before I could assess this case and make determinations. I permitted the defence to reopen its case and have a proper forensic analysis conducted. Section 11(b) of the Charter had been waived. I permitted the Crown latitude to conduct its own examination of the phones. I permitted Detective Constable Gazey to be recalled by the defence. The Crown would have been permitted to cross-examine the officer.

In short, the court required the evidence as it was highly probative, I endeavoured to ameliorate prejudice to the parties and I dealt with the potential violation of Browne v. Dunn by permitting the recall of Detective Constable Gazey.

There is no doubt that proceeding in this fashion prolonged the proceeding, which made recall of some of the evidence more difficult. However, when I weighed the prejudice of that delay against the benefit accrued to the truth-seeking function of the trial by permitting the admissibility of relevant, reliable forensic evidence, I found that it was necessary in the interests of trial fairness to proceed in the fashion which we did. For a complete review of my reasons for permitting the defence to reopen their case, please see my separately released ruling.

Finally, Detective Constable Gazey, whose credibility was so very central to this case, never did return to trial despite being validly served with a subpoena. Instead, he retired from the Toronto Police Service and travelled to Italy instead of returning to face questions regarding forensic phone evidence. Thus, many of the remaining questions surrounding the disparities between the forensic evidence versus the evidence of the officer remain unanswered. I did not engage in speculation as to what some of the answers to those unanswered questions might be. Not all questions in a trial are answered. Some questions are never answered. However, the burden of proof lies always with the Crown. Where there is reasonable doubt, the benefit of that doubt must accrue to Mr. Norouzian.

FORM 2

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))

Evidence Act

I, Cale Harper, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Siavash Norouzian in the Superior Court of Justice held at 361 University Avenue, taken from Recording 4899-2-7-20200221-084141--10-LONDONA.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.

*This certification does not apply to the Reasons for Sentence which were judicially edited.

March 17, 2020 Cale Harper (Date) (Signature of Authorized Person(s))