People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Mar 10, 2005

Versions:16 A.D.3d 767

790 N.Y.S.2d 753

2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2418

pink The user wants to convert a legal document from provided images and OCR into a clean HTML format. **Analysis of the document:** - It‘s a series of legal opinions from the New York Appellate Division, Third Department. - The document starts with the end of one case (suspension of an attorney). - The first “complete” opinion starts with “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bennie Martin, Jr., Appellant.” - There is a second opinion starting with “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Cornwall, Appellant.” - There is a third opinion starting with “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stevie Robinson, Appellant.” - The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” - In this case, the document is a reporter page containing several brief “memorandum and order” decisions. Usually, “Main Opinion” in this context refers to the first complete case starting on the page. - I will focus on the case of *People v. Martin*. However, looking at the layout, these are short memo decisions. I should probably convert the first complete one. **Case 1: People v. Bennie Martin, Jr.** - Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v BENNIE MARTIN, JR., Appellant. - Citation: 790 NYS2d 753 - Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department (Inferred from context of NYCRR 806.9 and the judges’ names: Mercure, Peters, Rose, Lahtinen, Kane - which are typical for the 3rd Dept around 2005). - Date: March 10, 2005. - Judges: Kane, J. (writing), Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concurring. - Docket: Not explicitly shown, but typically not in reporter headers for these NY cases. I‘ll omit if not found. **Case 2: People v. Shawn Cornwall** - Citation: 790 NYS2d 754 - Also on these pages. **Case 3: People v. Stevie Robinson** - Citation: 790 NYS2d 586 - Also on these pages (starts at bottom of p 768). The instruction says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, in these scenarios, users want the first full one if multiple are presented. I will convert the *Martin* case. **Wait**, the instructions for “Multi-Opinion Documents” say: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” The document has three complete (albeit short) opinions. Usually, I pick the first full one. **Metadata for People v. Martin:** - `shortName`: People v. Martin - `docket`: (None provided) - `court`: N.Y. App. Div. (or 3d Dep‘t) - `date`: 2005-03-10 - `citation`: 790 N.Y.S.2d 753 **Content extraction for Martin:** - Case info: Caption, Citation, Court info from page header/context. - Body text: “Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment...” through “Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.” **Check for Case 2 (People v. Cornwall):** - Does the user want all of them? “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. This often implies the first one that is complete. - Let‘s look at the first page. It starts with the end of a disciplinary matter. - Then “March 10, 2005“. - Then *People v. Martin*. - Then *People v. Cornwall*. - These are distinct cases. I will provide the first complete one (*Martin*). **Refining Metadata:** - Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v BENNIE MARTIN, JR., Appellant. - Short Name: People v. Martin - Date: March 10, 2005 -> 2005-03-10 - Court: Appellate Division, Third Department -> N.Y. App. Div. - Citation: 790 N.Y.S.2d 753 (Note: OCR says 790NYS2d 753, I should normalize if possible but the cite text in `cite` attribute should be clean). **Text Reflow:** - “con- trolled” -> “controlled” - “po- lice” -> “police” - “sup- pression” -> “suppression” - “sec- ond” -> “second” - “crimi- nal” -> “criminal” - “pro- se” (Cornwall case) -> “pro se” - “as- signment” -> “assignment” **Pagination:** - Page 767 starts. The Martin case starts mid-page. - Page 768 starts during the Martin case. Wait, let‘s re-read the Martin case text. “Upon reviewing the record, we note that defendant waived his right to appeal all aspects of the case, including the preplea rulings, the judgment of conviction and sentence. This was done as part of defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.” The Cornwall case starts after Martin. I will convert only the *People v. Martin* case as it‘s the first full opinion following partial text. **Case Citations in Martin:** 1. People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999] 2. People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004] 3. lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004] 4. People v Boyce, 2 AD3d 1208, 1208 [2003] 5. lv denied 2 NY3d 737 [2004] **Law Citations in Martin:** - (none explicitly besides general “Judiciary Law” in the previous case, but Martin has no law cites, only case cites). **Wait**, let‘s check the Cornwall case too. The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion“. In legal reporter contexts like this, each block is technically an “opinion” or “memorandum“. Often, if the user provides multiple pages of a reporter, they want the cases therein. However, standard operating procedure for this prompt when given multiple full opinions is to pick the first complete one. Let‘s double check the “Multi-Opinion Documents” rule: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This usually targets the first complete case. **Wait**, looking at the Cornwall case, it starts on page 768. The Martin case starts on 767 and ends on 768. The Robinson case starts at the very bottom of 768. I will process *People v. Martin, Jr.* **Metadata for People v. Martin:** - `midpage-case-name`: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v BENNIE MARTIN, JR., Appellant. - `shortName`: People v. Martin - `midpage-citation`: 790 N.Y.S.2d 753 - `midpage-court`: N.Y. App. Div. - `midpage-date`: 2005-03-10 - `midpage-judge`: Kane, J. **Citations to tag:** - `People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]` -> `` - `People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004]` -> `` - `lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]` -> `, lv denied ` (Need to be careful with “lv denied” citations. They are usually treated as separate history/citation tags). - `People v Boyce, 2 AD3d 1208, 1208 [2003]` -> `` - `lv denied 2 NY3d 737 [2004]` -> `, lv denied ` **Refining OCR of the caption:** - Text: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bennie Martin, Jr., Appellant. [790 NYS2d 753]” - The date “(March 10, 2005)” is a header for the group of cases. **Structure:** 1. Case info (Martin) 2. Body **Wait**, the “March 10, 2005” date applies to the whole set. I‘ll include it in Martin‘s metadata. **Let‘s look at the first page top.** It‘s the end of an order suspending an attorney. I skip this as it‘s partial. The first full case is *People v. Martin, Jr.* One detail: “790NYS2d 753” in OCR should be “790 NYS2d 753“. I should follow the image where there is a space. One more check on the Cornwall case. Is it a “main opinion“? Usually, if there are multiple short memos, they are all “main” in their own right. But the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. This typically means the one starting on that page if it‘s the primary subject. In a reporter page, it usually means the first complete one. I‘ll proceed with People v. Martin. **Metadata extraction for Martin:** Short Name: People v. Martin Full Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v BENNIE MARTIN, JR., Appellant. Citation: 790 N.Y.S.2d 753 Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Specifically 3d Dept, but N.Y. App. Div. is standard Bluebook) Date: 2005-03-10 **Pagination markers:** Start of Martin is on page 767. Inside the last paragraph: “intelligent guilty plea.” Let‘s double check the citation formatting in the text. The source text: `[790 NYS2d 753]—Kane, J.` Actually, looking at the image, there is an em-dash after the bracket. The OCR: `[790NYS2d 753] Kane, J.` Wait, the image for page 1 shows: `[790 NYS2d 753]—Kane, J.` The em-dash is there. I will keep the em-dash outside the midpage-case tag if it were a cite, but here it‘s prefatory metadata. Wait, the bracketed citation `[790 NYS2d 753]` is reporter-inserted citation. I should capture it. Judges: `Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.` Final check on the Cornwall case: The instructions state: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” If I am given 2 pages with 3 cases, and the prompt asks for “the MAIN opinion“, and Case 1 is the first full one, I do Case 1. **HTML generation:** ```html

Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Lalor, J.), rendered June 24, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. He moved to suppress the evidence seized as well as certain statements he made to the police. Following a suppression hearing, County Court granted suppression of the statements, but not of the tangible physical evidence. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to five years to life in prison. He now appeals.

Upon reviewing the record, we note that defendant waived his right to appeal all aspects of the case, including the preplea rulings, the judgment of conviction and sentence. This was done as part of defendant‘s knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant is precluded from challenging County Court‘s ruling on his suppression motion (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]; People v Boyce, 2 AD3d 1208, 1208 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 737 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

``` Wait, “790NYS2d 753” in OCR - looking at image 1, it is `[790 NYS2d 753]`. Also, “Kane, J. Appeal from...” I should include the citation in the summary/prefatory section? Actually, the prompt says “Include ALL content before the main opinion text“. The caption and the citation line and the Judge name/intro sentence usually start the opinion in these memo decisions. I‘ll put the caption/metadata in the `details` block and then the text of the memo. Wait, looking at the layout: `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v BENNIE MARTIN, JR., Appellant. [790 NYS2d 753]—Kane, J.` The `Kane, J.` part is the start of the opinion. The citation is metadata. One thing: re-joining words. “controlled” (OCR had con- trolled) “police” (OCR had po- lice) “suppression” (OCR had sup- pression) “second” (OCR had sec- ond) “criminal” (OCR had crimi- nal) “guilty plea” (Split across pages) Wait, checking the second page “Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.” In the Martin case (page 768), the concurring judges are: “Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.“. Wait, on page 767 (bottom), the Martin case cites Kane, J. as the writer. On page 768, after the Martin text, there is a concurrence block. The Cornwall case then follows. I‘ll stick to *People v. Martin, Jr.* One detail: `lv denied` citations. `People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]` I will treat `lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]` as a separate citation tag with the same case name because it‘s a subsequent history action (leave denied). Correction on `midpage-case` for `lv denied`: Usually, `lv denied` is subsequent history. The prompt example for subsequent history is: `, aff‘d, ` So for Martin: `, lv denied ` Wait, what is the court for 3 NY3d 650? It‘s the Court of Appeals (N.Y.). Check cite: `94 NY2d 831`. This is `94 N.Y.2d 831`. Court is `N.Y.`. Check cite: `6 AD3d 746`. This is `6 A.D.3d 746`. Court is `N.Y. App. Div.`. Check cite: `3 NY3d 650`. This is `3 N.Y.3d 650`. Court is `N.Y.`. Check cite: `2 AD3d 1208`. This is `2 A.D.3d 1208`. Court is `N.Y. App. Div.`. Check cite: `2 NY3d 737`. This is `2 N.Y.3d 737`. Court is `N.Y.`. One more thing: In the images, there‘s a square block character before the caption for People v. Martin and People v. Cornwall and Stevie Robinson. It‘s a bullet/marker. I‘ll omit it as formatting or treat it as a symbol. OCR captures it as a black box. The instructions say “Remove ... vertical/horizontal lines“. I‘ll treat it as a bullet and omit it for a clean caption in the header. Wait, should I convert Cornwall too? “If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion“. In reporters, there isn‘t really one “MAIN” opinion. They are all equally main. Usually, the instructions are for when a PDF contains the end of one case and the start of a new one, or a syllabus/opinion. However, I will follow the instruction to skip partial content (the attorney suspension) and start with the first complete case (*Martin*). Wait, the prompt says “convert the PROVIDED document“. If the document contains 3 complete cases, should I convert all 3? “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” In these reporter pages, *Martin*, *Cornwall*, and *Robinson* are all complete opinions. Usually, in this context, the prompt implies “don‘t mix multiple cases into one output if they are distinct, pick the main one“. But often users want everything. However, the “MAIN opinion” phrasing is very specific to selecting the primary case of the document. I will pick *People v. Martin, Jr.* as it‘s the first full one. Wait, looking at the OCR and images: Image 1: End of attorney matter. Start of Martin. Image 2: End of Martin. Cornwall case. Bottom: Start of Robinson. Robinson is cut off. Cornwall is complete. Martin is complete. I will convert Martin. Wait, I should check if there‘s any law I missed. “criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree” - No law cite given in text (it‘s Penal Law 220.xx but it‘s not written). Final check on citation tags: `lv denied` is common in NY. I‘ll tag it. One detail: `790NYS2d 753`. The image clearly shows `790 NYS2d 753`. Normalized cite: `790 N.Y.S.2d 753`. One detail: `[790 NYS2d 753]—Kane, J.`. The dash is an em-dash in the image. One more thing: the concurrency block for Martin. `Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.` This should be its own paragraph. Let‘s double check if I missed any text. “intelligent guilty plea” - “guilty” is at the end of 767, “plea” is at the start of 768. The marker should be `` at the word boundary. “guilty plea.” Ready. Wait, I will check the Cornwall case just in case. “Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault... 1 1/2 to 3 years... 1 3/4 to 3 1/2 years...” Actually, `11/2` in OCR is `1 1/2` in image. `13/4 to 31/2` in OCR is `1 3/4 to 3 1/2`. Wait, I‘m only doing Martin. One final check on the Martin case citation: The brackets `[790 NYS2d 753]` are usually just the citation. In the output: ```html ``` Should I include `Kane, J.` in the summary? It says `midpage-judge`. The text starts with: `Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment...` Okay, let‘s look at the concurrency line again. `Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.` This is the conclusion/signature of the court. One final thing: the em-dash. `Appellant. [790 NYS2d 753]—Kane, J.` I will put “Kane, J.” as the judge in the metadata and also start the body text with it as per the source text layout. Wait, the prompt says “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. Does that mean I should remove `Kane, J.` from the body? Usually, in these memo decisions, the judge name is part of the first sentence of the opinion text. If I remove it from the body, the sentence becomes: `Appeal from a judgment...` However, the prompt says “don‘t repeat in body“. I‘ll put it in metadata and skip it at the start of the body to follow the instruction strictly. Actually, the instruction says: “Include ALL content before the main opinion text: Syllabus / “Held:” sections... Headnotes...“. The caption and the citation line are prefatory. The opinion starts with `Kane, J.` If I put it in metadata, I‘ll omit it from the body. Wait, the instruction “don‘t repeat in body” usually refers to the caption, court name, etc. But the judge name starting a paragraph is part of the opinion text. Actually, if it‘s in the metadata tag `

`, it shouldn‘t be in the body. I will exclude it from the first paragraph of the body. Let‘s re-read the OCR/Image: `Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment...` This is a standard memorandum and order style. Wait, looking at the first paragraph: `Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Lalor, J.), rendered June 24, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.` If I remove `Kane, J.`, the sentence is still a sentence (though a fragment describing the appeal). Actually, the judge‘s name is metadata. One more check: The citation `790 NYS2d 753`. Is it part of the body? No, it‘s a reporter-added header. I‘ll put it in the metadata only. Paragraph 1: “Appeal from a judgment...” Paragraph 2: “Defendant was charged...” Paragraph 3: “Upon reviewing the record...” Paragraph 4: “Mercure, J.P., Peters...” Wait, the concurrency/order is at the very end. `Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.` I‘ll format this last part as a separate paragraph or a signature-like block? It‘s the order of the court. I‘ll use a `

`. Actually, `Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.` is the directive. I‘ll keep it as a paragraph. Final Citations Check: `People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]` OCR: `(see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; ...)` The “see” is outside. One more thing: In New York reports, citations use brackets for years: `[1999]`. I will preserve this word order and formatting. One detail: `790 NYS2d 753` vs `790NYS2d 753`. The OCR has a typo (missing space). The image shows the space. I‘ll use the space. Wait, I need to check the exact wording of the citations. `People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]` In the image: `People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]` I will tag the `lv denied` as a separate case cite. Final review of the metadata: - Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v BENNIE MARTIN, JR., Appellant. - Short Name: People v. Martin - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (or Appellate Division, Third Department) - Date: 2005-03-10 - Judge: Kane, J. The prompt asks for Bluebook-style abbreviations for `court`. For the New York Appellate Division, that is `N.Y. App. Div.`. Wait, the pagination for page 767. The Martin case starts near the middle of page 767. The marker `` should go before the start of the Martin content. Wait, I‘ll use `March 10, 2005` as the date. The source shows it in parentheses above the case. One last check on the “MAIN opinion” instruction. If I provide only Martin, am I following the spirit? The document has three cases. Case 1: Partial suspension. Case 2: People v. Martin (Full) Case 3: People v. Cornwall (Full) Case 4: People v. Robinson (Starts) If I follow “MAIN opinion“, and this is a reporter page, Case 2 is the first main one. Case 3 is also main. In many tasks, “MAIN opinion” means the first one provided in full. However, sometimes if the whole PDF is just 2 pages of a reporter, the user wants all the content. But the instruction “If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion” is a strong filter. I‘ll focus on People v. Martin. Wait, let‘s look at the short name for Martin. `shortName=“People v. Martin“` One detail: `790 NYS2d 753`. I‘ll put it in metadata as `790 N.Y.S.2d 753` for the cite attribute but preserve the original text format if it were in the body (but I‘m moving it to metadata). Wait, the prompt says “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. The citation `[790 NYS2d 753]` appears in the caption line. The Judge `Kane, J.` appears at the start of the text. I will remove both from the body. The caption is also metadata. Body start: “Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Lalor, J.)...” Wait, is “Kane, J.” metadata or part of the opinion? It‘s the “delivered by” indicator. Instruction: “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. Metadata element: `

`. So I will put `Kane, J.` there and omit it from the body. Wait, the prompt: “Include ALL content before the main opinion text: Syllabus ... Attorney listings ... Any other prefatory material“. Usually, the Judge name in NY memo decisions is the “delivered by” name. I‘ll treat it as metadata. One detail: `6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004]`. The pinpoint is `747`. Cite is `6 A.D.3d 746`. Court is `N.Y. App. Div.`. One more cite: `2 AD3d 1208, 1208 [2003]`. Pinpoint is `1208`. Cite is `2 A.D.3d 1208`. One detail: `3 NY3d 650`. Cite is `3 N.Y.3d 650`. Court is `N.Y.`. One detail: `2 NY3d 737`. Cite is `2 N.Y.3d 737`. Court is `N.Y.`. The text for “lv denied” in the image is: `lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]`. Wait, the comma is after [2004]. `People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]; People v Boyce...` The `lv denied` cite should be tagged. Wait, if I tag the full block `People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]`, is that one tag or two? Usually, each court action is a separate cite. Tag 1: `People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004]` Tag 2: `3 NY3d 650 [2004]` Final verification of words: “tangible physical evidence” “knowingly, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea” (Source: “knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea“) Let‘s check image 1: “knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea“. OCR says “knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty“. Okay. Ready to output. One last check on the concurrency judges. `Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.` I will put these in the judge metadata too? No, usually `midpage-judge` is for the authoring judge. I‘ll leave the concurring judges in the body at the end. Wait, the instruction “don‘t repeat in body” applies to elements with specific metadata tags. I‘ll put `Kane, J.` in `

`. I‘ll put the concurring judges in the body as they are part of the concluding text block. Final check on capitalization: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK... I‘ll keep it exactly as it appears in the caption. One detail: “March 10, 2005“. I‘ll format the attribute as `date=“2005-03-10“`. Wait, “March 10, 2005” appears as a date header for a series of decisions. I‘ll include it. Wait, the prompt: “midpage-court: court attribute uses Bluebook abbreviation (e.g., court=“9th Cir.“)” For New York Appellate Division, Third Department, the Bluebook abbreviation is `N.Y. App. Div.`. Let‘s do this. ```html

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Lalor, J.), rendered June 24, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

``` Wait, I should check the judges again. Page 767 concurrence block: `Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner‘s motion...` That‘s the attorney suspension case. Page 768 Martin concurrence block: `Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.` Yes, that‘s correct. I will use straight quotes for everything. Wait, is there any law cite? `Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (g)` is in the attorney case. `22 NYCRR 806.9` is in the attorney case. In the Martin case, there are no law cites, only case cites. Final decision on Cornwall: I will skip it to adhere to “MAIN opinion“. If a document has multiple distinct cases on one page, “MAIN opinion” typically refers to the first complete one in the flow. One more check: `midpage-citation` - I should use the volume and reporter. `cite=“790 N.Y.S.2d 753“` is good. Let‘s do it.