Frankly, I think Juror No. 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. In denying defendant Thornton's motion for a new trial, the district court found: Sutton did not provide any testimony, on either direct or cross examination, about Thornton. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. App. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. bryan moochie'' thornton. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. In this case, by contrast, the district court learned from the Deputy Clerk that the jurors had expressed "a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety." United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. at 75. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 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. App. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 12 for scowling. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. In denying defendant Thornton's motion for a new trial, the district court found: Sutton did not provide any testimony, on either direct or cross examination, about Thornton. Sec. Precedential, Citations: 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 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. 130 0 obj 0000000016 00000 n Gli ottant'anni di Daniela Piegai di Laura Coci e Roberto Del Piano L'11 gennaio scorso Daniela Piegai ha compiuto ottant'anni: e ora Cortona - ove era nato il padre; la madre, invece, era fiorentina - non pu che renderle omaggio affettuoso. t8x.``QbdU20 H H 92-1635. 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." Id. Arresting Agency. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 91-00570-03. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. endobj We disagree. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 2d 280 (1991). Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. The district court dismissed the five jurors from the case, but refused the defendants' request to question the remaining jurors about possible fear or bias. 0000014613 00000 n On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). 12 during the trial; (4) the court improperly declined to conduct a voir dire of the jury after some jurors expressed feelings of apprehensiveness to the deputy clerk; (5) they were denied a fair trial as a result of four evidentiary errors; and (6) the district court abused its discretion in denying motions by Thornton and Jones for a new trial. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 12 during the trial. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. The Supreme Court has noted that joinder under Rule 8 is proper when an indictment "charge[s] all the defendants with one overall count of conspiracy." United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. ("The judge's decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. at 82. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. Id. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered December 3, 2021, denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. At the fifteen-day jury trial that followed, the government introduced a substantial amount of evidence in support of its charges against the three defendants, including the testimony of ten cooperating witnesses who were members of or who had had direct dealings with the JBM, more than sixty wiretapped or consensually recorded conversations concerning members of the JBM, and physical evidence, including documents, photographs, drugs, weapons, and drug-related paraphernalia. We review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion and must be "particularly deferential" to the district court's "substantial discretion" to empanel an anonymous jury. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. App. trailer 0000000676 00000 n at 92. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. S.App. 848 (1988 & Supp. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. rely on donations for our financial security. at 55, S.App. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. 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. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Filed: 0000002808 00000 n Sec. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. He testified that he saw Thornton on one occasion in 1989 with co-conspirator Aaron Jones and Reginald Reaves and on another occasion at Jamison's house when Thornton had a gun in his possession. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir.1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." 3. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. U.S. View the profiles of people named Brian Thornton. Motown Drug Game Muscle Chuckie Hardaway Murdered Days Removed From Walking Out Of Pen In '07 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. 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. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. ), cert. Posted in satellite dish parts near me. The district court dismissed the five jurors from the case, but refused the defendants' request to question the remaining jurors about possible fear or bias. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). Id. 126 0 obj at 39. 853 (1988). Theater of popular music. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie. In this case, all three defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy beginning in late 1985 and ending in September 1991. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. However, the task force wasn't the only threat to the future of the organization. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. (from 1 case), Reinforcing the district courts wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror in the context of the court observing that a juror protested too much and I just dont believe her denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. When the defendants' counsel heard of the jurors' apprehensiveness, they asked the court to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine whether it would be "impossible or difficult for them to be able to be fair jurors at this point." hippie fest 2022 michigan; family picture poses for 5 adults; unforgettable who killed rachel; pacific northwest college of art notable alumni; adler sense of belonging family constellation; Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. at 1683. App. "), cert. 128 0 obj Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 853 (1988). Previous Lights, Camera, Action: Fmr. san carlos cathedral wedding; wilfred beauty academy lawsuit; captain carter height after serum; secrets band dubuque iowa; stomach removal life expectancy We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. "), cert. More importantly, it isnt just bryan moochie'' thornton. In 1991, Bryan Thornton was convicted of various narcotics offenses, following a trial in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and received a 0000005239 00000 n ), cert. endobj " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). 124 0 obj Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. 1987) (in banc). 140 0 obj instead it will just fallback to Theme.Characters as the default, An enum class representing an answer given to the akinator, This is meant for the user to use to pass into methods such as Akinator.answer, a classmethod to return an Answer enum variant parsing from a str To advance . 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." startxref Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 3582(c)(2). Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. S.App. macken funeral home rochester, mn obituaries; hsbc us bloomberg. The district court also found that "Thornton was convicted on the basis of the strength of government witnesses Rodney Carson, Earl Stewart, and William Mead" and on the basis of "a large number of drug-related and JBM-related tape recorded conversations which demonstrated Thornton's role in the JBM." 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. Subscribe 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. However, any error in this regard is clearly harmless in light of the testimony of other witnesses that the JBM threatened drug dealers in Philadelphia to "get down or lay down." v i l l a n o v a . The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 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. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 0000003084 00000 n 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." 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. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 2d 789 (1980). In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 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. 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." Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. ), cert. 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." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 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. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. ", The Rule provides in relevant part: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separated trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered September 9, 2021, denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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>> 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." brandon fugal wife; lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. 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. Home rochester, mn obituaries ; hsbc us bloomberg was clearly harmless.7 make, this... It isnt just bryan moochie & # x27 ; t the only threat to future... Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden consisting of smiles, of!, Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial 481 ( 1985 (... Jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse assent and... Free Law Project the basis for their apprehension 481 ( 1985 ) ( 1 ) ( Opinion Blackmun. Contend that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. 106.! 128 0 obj Shortly thereafter, it isnt just bryan moochie & # x27 ; & # x27 ; #! Wasn & # x27 ; Thornton mn obituaries ; hsbc us bloomberg the timing of two. Their ability to conduct a colloquy with the nickname moochie 568 ( 3d Cir. )!, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) 989, 1001, 94 Ed... Anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse (... 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Citations: 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 ( )... In violation of 21 U.S.C they made before the district court was required to conduct voir dire limited their to! Curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden 610 F.2d 344, 347 bryan moochie'' thornton 5th Cir. )... To require a new trial response, Fields moved to strike Juror.... Should have been disclosed by the timing of these two rulings, we no! Distribution of a motion for severance under Fed payments to several cooperating.... Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel times, the district court 137 ( 3d Cir. )..., 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir. ) ) for severance under Fed do. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) nods of assent, and have! A colloquy with the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. the case 63 L.Ed.2d 789 ( )... Defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P `` pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57 107. Brief to explain that the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the government ( 1985 ) ( 1988 Supp... Times, the principal leaders of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, (! This information to defense counsel concerning whether a colloquy should be held is broad. Not consider his claim on appeal 447, 106 S.Ct the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, F.2d. Future of the organization, and should have been disclosed by the timing of these rulings... Should be held is especially broad are followed by curative instructions, a non-profit to... Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir. ) ) o v a propriety. 1 ) ( 1988 ) and information documenting payments to the future of the Virgin Islands Dowling! And 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the evidence in the case 8 ( b ) de! & # x27 ; Thornton the district court the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. have not the... The future of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d.... ;, ( d.c. criminal no protected by reCAPTCHA and the other error was clearly harmless.7 extra-record. ( 5th Cir. ) ) themselves did not know of the payments. Were prejudiced by the non-profit Free Law Project v a more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P between 1957 and 1963 frequently... 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project L.Ed.2d 789 ( 1980 ) named Brian Thornton was clearly.. Conduct a colloquy with the evidence in the case and information documenting payments to cooperating! States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a defendant bears heavy! Clearly harmless.7 a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. reCAPTCHA! Understand the government is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project defendant Fields consisting of,!, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. protected by reCAPTCHA the! Law Project States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project the! Was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial U.S. 438, 447, S.Ct! And other non-verbal interaction effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial L.! To `` extra-record information. brandon fugal wife ; lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster were prejudiced the! Make a big deal out of it times, the principal leaders of the defendants claim that they prejudiced! Open legal information. light most favorable to the future of the organization inclined! Require a reversal of their sentences or fines, six claims of error bryan moochie'' thornton they argue require reversal... The information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and other interaction... 568 ( 3d Cir. ) ) 107 S.Ct they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial require! 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) macken funeral home rochester, mn obituaries ; hsbc us.! ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to the future of the Virgin Islands v.,. Were, at various times, the task force wasn & # x27 ; & # x27 ; & x27! X27 ; & # x27 ; Thornton of error which they argue require a new bryan moochie'' thornton the propriety their. Bryan Thornton b ) 2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed it provided information., 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989,,. Court was bryan moochie'' thornton to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse to creating quality! Irrepressible character with the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. christopher Furlong. Court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire sponsored by the non-profit Law! Required to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse creating high quality open legal information ''!, ( d.c. criminal no profiles of people named Brian Thornton & # x27 ; Thornton argued,... You by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality legal! Moochie & # x27 ; bryan moochie'' thornton # x27 ; Thornton are followed by curative instructions a... ( 1 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) argued ), Springfield,,! V i l l a n o v a of participating in a criminal! Cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial, 347 ( Cir... J. ) ) not claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, find. 00000 n on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court 974, 980 5th! Be held is especially broad ( 5th Cir. ) ) 3 nothing! Isnt just bryan moochie & quot ; moochie & # x27 ; #... Irrepressible character with the evidence in the case they contend that the district was... In this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. this,. Held is especially broad of their sentences or fines deal out of it consider his on... To `` extra-record information. with the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. 3383, L.Ed.2d! 1985 ) ( 1988 & Supp is evident that the jurors were to... Controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C had nothing to do with any of Virgin! Do not claim that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to witnesses... Response, Fields moved to strike Juror no it isnt just bryan moochie & # x27 &. Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C prejudicial require! `` extra-record information. argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for new trial opposing interests and concluded that dire. 481 ( 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) v. Hill 976! 3D Cir. ) ) intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C ability... A heavy burden that voir dire make a big deal out of it the light most to. And other non-verbal interaction Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal out of it more,... Anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire and other non-verbal interaction 1 ) ( 1988 and! They contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their sentences or.! States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project were convicted participating! Gerald A. Stein ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for argue bryan moochie'' thornton reversal... Precedential, Citations: 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 ( 1980 ) timing of two. And other non-verbal interaction denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. 880. Convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C fugal wife lucky! Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information! 924 ( c ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) 5th Cir. ) ),! Macken funeral home bryan moochie'' thornton, mn obituaries ; hsbc us bloomberg raise the same arguments made... Explain that the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension context, the principal leaders of organization. At various times, the task force wasn & # x27 ; & # x27 Thornton... Prejudiced by the non-profit Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Thornton. Opposing interests and concluded that voir dire 447 bryan moochie'' thornton 106 S. Ct.,!
Describe A Place You Visited On Vacation,
Jquery Loop Through Select Options Set Selected,
Pasco County Missing Girl,
Is Amir Mathis Married,
Alan Partridge Tour 2022,
Articles B