Armed Robber steals $4 pack of socks, gets life in prison

[The Straight Story]

Life in prison for stealing $4 package of socks


What started as a shoplifting and turned into an armed robbery when the suspect revealed a handgun to a loss-prevention officer has resulted in a mandatory sentence of life in prison for a Daytona Beach man, reports the Orlando Sentinel.

A jury deliberated for about an hour April 14 before finding Dean Rockmore, 48, guilty of robbery with a firearm, assistant State Attorney Chris Kelly said. On Friday Circuit Judge Margaret Hudson found that Rockmore qualified as a prison releasee reoffender and handed down the life sentence, Kelly said.

Rockmore was released from prison Jan. 26, 2009, and committed the robbery about two months later on March 29, according to court documents.

An employee at the DeLand Walmart saw Rockmore place packages of tee shirts and socks into the front of his pants and stopped him, reports show. Rockmore ran when customers became between him and the worker and he was chased into the parking lot.

Rockmore dropped the shirts, but he got away with a $4 package of socks when the Walmart employee backed off after Rockmore lifted his shirt to show a gun, police said.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2010/05/life_in_prison_for_stealing_4.html

Meanwhile Cheney and crew are sipping wine and watching the oil gushing while lighting cigars with $100 bills.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Maybe some people are well off because of an attempt

for them to realize they are being treated nicely, so they can not complain about some future judgement.

Or maybe it is effects of free will that all people are part of.

I do agree that two tier justice is not justice.

[sharesunited]

2. Access to a gun ruined this man's life.

[Riftaxe]

4. Using the gun during the commission of yet another crime

certainly did not help it much.

[proteus_lives]

5. Criminal behavior ruined this man's life.

There, I fixed your mistake.

[sharesunited]

7. Obviously, having the gun emboldened him to commit the crime.

[proteus_lives]

17. Never going stop trying to get that fail-wagon moving, huh?

"embolden".

:eyes:

What would have "emboldened" him if he used a knife?

[Scuba]

23. No, whatever reduced him to having to steal socks and underwear...

...ruined his life.

[Orsino]

57. The same forces that invented "zero-tolerance"...

...will ensure that his life never gets unruined.

We are all imprisoned by this so-called system of so-called justice.

[Statistical]

63. I believe in zero-tolerance for violent crimes.

I guess I am "weird" that way?

The guy had other options. At the very least he could have stolen while unarmed. Hell he could have SOLD THE GUN and used the money to avoid needing to use a firearm in a violent crime.

[Orsino]

64. Zero-tolerance is always an excuse...

...not to have to do the hard work of treating and/or living with former offenders. It's an excuse not to have to formulate appropriate punishment.

[Statistical]

67. That is where we differ. Long and severe IS the appropriate punishment for violent criminals.

We aren't talking about a drug bust here, we aren't talking about a unoccupied burglary, we aren't talking about someone hotwiring a car, we aren't talking about petty theft.

We are talking about using violence or threat of violence to seize another persons assets. Robbery.
Punishment for violent crimes should be significant.

I say release all the non-violent drug offenders and double the sentences for violent criminals.

[Orsino]

74. Zero-tolerance would mean stupid stuff like life imprisonment without parole...

...for a crime in which a weapon is shown, but never pointed at anyone or even brandished.

That's not the same thing as gunning someone down during a theft. There are many, many possible levels of offense. When there's no actual violence, but a clearly-implied threat of same, that's a crime at the bottom end (or below) of "violent crime."

Let's not use up all the long and severe on people who haven't actually injured anyone. A threat (which I don't mean to minimize) is not the same thing as the act it implies.

[Statistical]

75. If criminal doesn't have a gun at the crime they CAN'T shoot a victim

Having a gun at crime increases the chance the someone will be injured hence a threat of violence is a violent crime.

IF we accept that some amount of crime will occur each year (say 500,000 events) then a way to reduce death and injury is to reduce the frequency that criminals bring weapons to those crimes. Punishing a criminal for turning petty theft into a violent crime is one such way.

Only considering crimes where one actually commits injury as deserving of serious punishment would be like only giving seatbelt tickets to those who died in a car accident without a seatbelt. I mean after all if cop pulls you over for speeding and you aren't wearing your seatbelt you weren't injured by that violation (at least not yet).

While it may be at the "bottom end" of violent crime it is still in the violent crime category.
Decriminalize non-violent drug possession and you would free up sufficient space to punish VIOLENT criminals more severely.

on edit: updated post to more clearly indicate that the criminal weapon at crime increases risk.

[Orsino]

79. I can't buy that theory...

...as it would lay an unconstitutional (IMO) burden of responsibility on an innocent bystander who happens to be carrying (legally) a weapon at a crime scene. Not considering intent is foolish and lazy, IMO.

And I haven't argued that injury is the sole qualifier for serious punishment.

After we're done with satisfying our urge to punish, however, we are still left with the problem of how to live with a former offender. The zero-tolerance "solutions" of execution or life-without-parole are also foolish and lazy.

[Statistical]

80. No buden on law abiding citzen.

I was speaking of the criminal.

If this criminal (or any criminal) had stolen from Walmart WITHOUT a weapon it would be petty theft. Petty theft is dealt with less severly because of the reduced risk of injury.

A criminal who brings a lethal weapon to a crime increases the chance of injury or death and as such it is ARMED ROBBERY and the punishment is higher.

The only difference between:

stealing $4 socks (or $400 watch) = petty theft
stealing $4 socks (or $400 watch) with deadly weapon = armed robbery

is the weapon and the greater potential harm to victims.

This guy is a violent repeat offender. I have no problem with locking hum up for very long time (and or life). If we need more room in prisons then release the million + non-violent drug offenders. Plenty of space if we end the stupid anti-drug crusade which packs our prisons with people who present no real harm.

[Orsino]

81. Anyone, to include bystanders and law enforcement...

...increases the chance of injury where a crime has occurred, or might occur (edit: by bringing along anything that might be used as a weapon).

Not considering the intent of a former offender would not be consistent or moral, IMO.

[Statistical]

82. In a legal sense he defined his intent by bringing a weapon to the crime.

To be convicted of crime of Armed Robbery the DA had to prove that his actions match the definition of the crime. While definition for Armed Robbery varies by statute generally Robbery has two elements:
* that the criminals steals
* does so with violence or threat of violence

Armed Robbery has an third element that needs to be proven which is the existence of the weapon.

Of course he could at trial provide an alternate explanation and refute the alegation that he used violence or threat of violence and that would result in a lesser charge (or no conviction). It would appear that either he made no such defense or the Jury did not believe his defense.

Had anyone been killed (even a co-conspirator) he would have also guilty of felony murder. He would be guilty of felony murder regardless of who fired the shots.

If you want top steal t-shirts from Walmart then leave you weapon at home. Pretty simply concept. Without the weapon he presented less of a danger to the public.

[Orsino]

83. Yes, it's a "pretty simple concept."

Too simple, in my opinion.

But I don't have much problem with the concept of possession of a weapon increasing the severity of an offense, or the length of a sentence.

As long as we truly consider the intent of a suspect (and not just falling back on the legal fiction of possession equaling intent) and don't unquestioningly stampede toward maximum penalties, we haven't succumbed completely to zero-tolerance stupidity.

[jberryhill]

90. Apparently, he could afford a gun /nt

[slackmaster]

He could have bought a complete set of halfway decent clothes for what he paid for the gun

Unless he stole it.

[Rebubula]

77. Fool

I have owned several guns for more than 2 decades. I have never committed a crime because of it and never shot it anywhere other than the range

Your constant drum-beat of 'GUNS IS EVIL - THEY MAKE GOOD PEOPLE BAD' is pretty weak and quite ignorant....but amusing.

[slackmaster]

94. He'd have gotten exactly the same sentence had he used a toy or fake gun instead of a real one

So no, "access" to a gun, which he did not legally have anyway, made no difference.

[lefty2000]

3. All this for $4.00? Idiotic

It will cost thousands of dollars to imprison the guy.

[Lucky Luciano]

8. This was more about the gun than $4 socks. nt

[salguine]

34. Maybe you wouldn't feel that way if you'd had the gun pointed at you.

[slackmaster]

47. I see it as being idiotic on the part of the robber

He gave up his freedom for some cheap socks that he won't even be allowed to keep.

He knew the rules, he CHOSE to break them.

Fuck him. We don't need assholes like him running around loose intimidating people.

[Goblinmonger]

65. So we should just ignore the fact that this guy

was willing to pull a gun to get a $4 pack of socks? What will/would he do if it was really important?

[proteus_lives]

6. Fear of freedom?

Or just a life-long criminal?

[depakid]

9. The former- fear

It's the major reason why America has the world's largest and most expensive prison system, incarcerating more of its own citizens than China, India or Russia.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

33. Fear is exactly what promotes this sort of deal- it's also behind the zero tolerance crap

that plagues American society.

Bottom line: the nation or rather all too many of its people, have lost any rational sense of proportionality (much less justice- which many see as nothing more than an unmitigated lust for vengeance).

Trouble with that of course, is that such single mindedness is expensive- and results in money being taken from other areas- child care, for example- or education, that might be used to deal with the root causes of the problems.

[pitohui]

10. sorry i'm done feeling sorry for armed robbers

he brought a gun into a store that he planned to rob, we're lucky this didn't end in somebody's death or severe injury

i've been shot at by crackheads, my sympathy for a guy who thinks it's OK to settle a dispute by shooting a gun at me is non-existent

it's not about the damn socks, it's about the gun

if he just wanted to shoplift, he shoulda left the gun at home rather than using it to threaten the security guard

(why are security guards at kmart and wallmart called loss prevention officers? what's that about? be that as it may, they don't need dudes pointing guns at them)

[asdjrocky]

39. Shot at by crack heads?

Never met a crackhead in my life that wouldn't sell his gun for a hit of crack.

[LostInAnomie]

11. Sounds like he is a fucking idiot.

The sentence is ridiculous, but he is a fucking idiot.

[tammywammy]

14. +1 n/t

[ORDagnabbit]

12. pretty simple.. dont do the crime you dont do the time.....that being said...

our judicial system sucks ass.... in some European countries this person would have most likely been rehabilitated very early in his life or because of their great social programs never started into a life of crime to begin with.

[Vickers]

13. "armed robber"

It ain't about the socks, it's about the method.

But hey, you knew that.

:eyes:

[JI7]

15. it's because he is a repeat offender, but i want to know what he was in prison the first time

for .

[Obamanaut]

19. Fla Dept of Corr website - offender search nt

[Cali_Democrat]

18. And Murkans wonder why the USA has more people behind bars than any other country

Murka.....f*ck ya!

[Dorian Gray]

24. Probably because they use guns

in their robberies.

Thank God nobody was shot and hurt and/or killed.

[slackmaster]

48. It's partly because we have more violent criminals than any other country

HTH

[Goblinmonger]

66. Drug crimes.

Not armed robbery.

[Statistical]

71. Remove non-violent drug offenders from prison.

Shrink prison population and make enough room to expand sentences served for truly violent individuals.

[krabigirl]

84. Yes.

[dionysus]

96. locking up armed robbers is now un-liberal?

hooookay :rofl:

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. If that gun was in your face, would you care what he was trying to steal?

No, and neither does the state.

If you commit a crime with a deadly weapon on you, the presumption is that you are ready and willing to use it.

What was stolen is immaterial.

[byrok]

27. I had a gun pointed right at my face.

When I managed a store, I had a regular customer of mine put a gun in my face and try to rob my store. I knew him for a few years and knew he had a pretty bad drug problem.

When he heard some of my employees coming from the backroom, he put the gun away and said he was sorry. Then he left. I had to call the police. It was my job and I was quite shaken. They caught him with a loaded gun before he even got home.

My statement during trial was that this guy has a serious drug problem, and that I felt the best thing that could happen was for him to be placed into a long-term drug treatment facility so that he could get the help that he needed. I did not recommend prison.

He got 3 to 7 years in state prison.

I guess my only point is... sometimes there are circumstances that we may not fully understand from a glance. One thing that I do know is that our prisons are filled with people that could be helped in other ways. Anyone who doubts that the system isn't broken, doesn't have a lot of credibility. I'm not trying to put those words in your mouth, I'm just replying where I felt appropriate.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[michreject]

31. Give me the name and local

I can do my own research.

This statement:

My statement during trial was that this guy has a serious drug problem, and that I felt the best thing that could happen was for him to be placed into a long-term drug treatment facility so that he could get the help that he needed. I did not recommend prison.

Who are you that any court would allow a opinion on sentencing? That would have brought an objection before you got out three words.

[byrok]

38. The statement was a written deposition...

and here's a bit of info.

summer 2000, Rentway store #1629 located on Washington Blvd., Bath, N.Y.,

gunmen name: A. Henry


Thats the only info I'm putting out in public. That's too much already. Why not give me a way to fax you or show you documents. If you think I made the whole thing up then I'm not sure to which lengths you think I would go to, to make it seem real? Create fake papers? What?

I was merely relating a story that happened to me once. I don't come on this sight and spew crap all the time. I barely ever post. I don't talk shit to anyone and I don't feel the need to just make up stupid stories just to raise my post numbers.

I have no agenda, but if some stranger is going to call me a liar for no reason at all, I'm going to stick up for myself. Do your research, then when you find the truth, I need no apologies. I just want you to sit and think, and then ask yourself why you would just assume that I was lying. Man, you're days must be difficult if you go through life so cynical.

edited: for using wrong word

[Paladin]

42. Don't Proffer Any More Information On This.

Divulging personal information to any of our resident D.U. Gun Enthusiasts is a really bad idea. Trust me, I know......

[byrok]

44. You're right.

Thank you. After walking away from this computer for a few minutes, I started to wonder why I would allow that statement to get under my skin like it did. I don't believe that I have ever really engaged in such nonsense before. There are way more important things to discuss intellectually, rather than argue with someone for absolutely no reason. Again, thank you.

[Paladin]

70. You Are Most Welcome. Try To Maintain That Healthy Perspective. (n/t)

[proudohioan]

52. Some jurisdictions allow a victim impact statement @ sentencing. n/t

[byrok]

55. That is exactly right. n/t

[Dappleganger]

58. You are way off-base.

Everyone reacts differently and your post is a personal attack.

[byrok]

60. Thank you.

That's how I felt when I read that reply. I've seen a lot of that on DU, but I have never been a target of it. I guess that is why I don't often post anything.

I also agree with your comment on Florida, although this particular incident happened in upstate NY.

Thanks again.

[Dappleganger]

46. The state of FL does not believe in rehab.

They only believe in throwing them in prison or taking them out by force via cop.

This is why their recidivism rate is so high.

[slackmaster]

53. As someone who has a friend doing prison time for robberies he committed for drug money,

I agree with you. I think a lot of people who are in prison could be better helped by treatment for their addictions.

[Greyhound]

21. What these "law and order" authoritarians fail to understand is that as we move

closer and closer to their imagined policatopia, more petty criminals will realize that they get the same punishment for petty theft that they do for murder, so why not use the gun?

[Statistical]

35. No penalty for murder should be death penalty.

[slackmaster]

54. Robbery is not the same thing as petty theft

Theft is simply the unlawful taking of someone's property. Robbery involves use of force, or threat of force. Robbery is a violent crime. Theft is not.

[Statistical]

61. +1. Very important distinction.

In a theft there is no risk of physical injury to the victim.
In a robbery there is, hence the higher level of punishment.

The courts tend to look at physical injury as a greater crime than financial injury.

[depakid]

85. Bottom line however is that this is still a pety crime given these facts

and people are talking (with little hesitation) about life in prison for it.

(one should also note that life in prison is imposed for petty theft under so called "three strikes" laws.

[Statistical]

86. No it isn't.

If he had been unarmed it would be petty theft

He used threat of violence to commit his crime which elevates it from theft to robbery.
He brought a firearm to facilitate that thread of violence which elevates it from robbery to armed robbery.

Nothing "petty" about violent crime or violent criminals. He showed a propensity & willingness to use violence to avoid getting caught. That combined with a lethal effective weapon (like a handgun) creates a danger to the general public.

The man belongs in prison. Not for socks but for a willingness to use a lethal weapon to facilitate such a trivial crime.

If he was willing to use threat of violence to "resolve" this trivial crime what would he do in a more serious situation?

[depakid]

87. Under these facts it certainly was!

Petty theft- the guy gets chased- shows a gun in his belt to keep from getting grabbed.

Now, this guy probably deserves some time- if I were a judge, I'd give him a county lid (a year in jail). Additional time depending on whether there's a PV and on the nature and remoteness of the priors.

Even discussing life in prison for this instance is absurd- quite frankly, it shocks the conscience- and as I posted below, is one of those things that helps to explain why America's a nation in decline.

[Statistical]

88. "guy shows a gun" = threat of violence with weapon during an armed robbery.

It was armed robbery. Pure and simple.

A jury agreed. They convicted him of ARMED ROBBERY.

You wanting to be an apologist and call it "showing a gun" ignoring the fact that the guy is a repeat violent offender who didn't have a legal right to carry a gun much less "show it" is very telling.

The Jury believed his intent on brandishing the weapon wasn't to show the craftsmanship to the employee but rather to convey a threat of violence. That threat of violence facilitated the theft and thus he was convicted of Armed Robbery which is a violent crime not a petty misdemeanor.

I doubt 1 year in jail meets sentencing guidelines for armed robbery. A judge is only part of the equation. Statutes are passed by the legislature and a judge is obligated to uphold the law (not your personal belief system).

[slackmaster]

92. He used a threat of deadly force to keep from getting grabbed

That makes it a violent crime.

[slackmaster]

93. He didn't get life in prison for this one crime

He got life in prison for a long pattern demonstrating that he is an unrepentant, career violent criminal.

[Greyhound]

89. You and Statistical make my point right here.

Thanks.

[Nailzberg]

22. Won't find me crying over this one.

It's like his tenth trip to the pokey, he wasn't exactly a model citizen.

[jp11]

25. Horrible decision making and there you go.

Sounds like a good call life in prison paid for by the taxpayers for a pretty dim bulb who tried to steal crap that was worth a fraction of the gun he already had.

[Statistical]

26. He didn't get prison for $4 socks. He got prison for an armed robbery.

In an armed robbery the amount stolen is not material.

What is material is the potential for death and injury. Despite his somewhat stupid choice in items t steal that doesn't change the risk to others.

To any potential criminals considering shoplifting..... do it unarmed.

To those that think the guy had no other choices. HE HAD A GUN. Guns have value. Depending on condition, legality, and how quickly he needed the money he could have gotten $100 - $500 for it. That would have paid for the socks, shirts, and more.

[Blue_Tires]

28. if only he stayed in school and eventually gotten a job on Wall Street

his heist would have netted a little more than $4, he wouldn't have needed a gun, AND he would have been able to keep his $$$$ without ever facing a day in jail...

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. That's right.

"A man with a briefcase can steal more money than any man with a gun." Don Henley

[NorthCarolina]

32. Sock problem permanently solved. n/t

[depakid]

36. Reading this thread and the responses makes one realize why America's headed for third world status

It really does.

[slackmaster]

56. Because there are people who are stupid enough to throw away their freedom for some cheap socks

It works for me.

Education is the answer.

[depakid]

72. No- because the knee jerk reactions are both very costly and evince a nation that no longer cares

not only about people in general - but also about the fact that it's lost all sense of proportion. Moreover, not only has the nation become incredibly callous- but also quite stupid with its priorities.

You have states spending more on their prisons now than on higher education!

Being from California (one of the worst offenders with these 3 strikes deals) you should know about the consequences to state budgets of this sort of thing.

Let's just say, it's not a prescription for long term success... and that's becoming more and more apparent with every passing day.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Good.

If would-be armed robbers know that they could go down for life, I wonder how that affects the likelihood of them committing the crime?

And I'm not an authoritarian asshole either. I hate the fact that small-time drug offenders are incarcerated in their millions when what they really need is treatment. But armed robbers? Lock them up.

[asdjrocky]

40. Just like in states with the death penetly, people kill less?

Oh yeah, that doesn't work either.

[Nye Bevan]

41. That's one of the reasons I oppose the death penalty

It doesn't work as a deterrent because the criminal knows that even if he is caught and convicted his chances of being executed are tiny. The prospect of a long prison sentence for a potential armed robber, however, is much more credible and should be much more likely to act as a deterrent.

[pipi_k]

59. I agree and disagree...

What I agree with is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. It's also rather permanent if, and when, it's carried out. There's always the chance that the guy really IS innocent (and not just "not guilty").


But for someone who has spent many years of his (or her) life in prison, sometimes being let out is scarier than being inside.

If one is used to the structure and culture of life in prison, it can actually be less frightening than having to survive out in a world that is...let's face it...extremely terrifying most of the time.

Rather than being a deterrent, I do believe that prison for some people represents an odd sort of "security".

[Statistical]

62. Murder is rarely a crime of opportunity.

Thus the rate can't be influenced much by level of punishment.

Theft & Robbery are crimes of opportunity however.
Another criminal may still choose to steal (socks) but may choose to do so unarmed.

Many career burglars make a conscious choice to not be armed due to higher sentencing for armed invasion. In the US the rate of "hot" burglary (burglary when home is occupied) is also lower.

So sentencing can have an influence on crimes of opportunity.

[Nye Bevan]

68. Good points. In the 50s and 60s the criminal gangs in the UK used to pat each other down

before going on a robbery, to make sure that none of their number was carrying a gun. They knew that they would all hang if someone was murdered during the crime.

[Statistical]

69. That is a major reason why I feel felony murder statute is a good one.

It gives criminals an incentive to chose a "less escalated" confrontation.

I would hate for my family to be the victim of crime but I would hate is much more if a member of my family is victim of violent crime.

[NNN0LHI]

43. Wouldn't have made any difference if he had got away empty handed

Someone pull a gun on me I want that person to spend some time in prison thinking about it.

A long time.

Don

[Dappleganger]

49. Very true.

[slackmaster]

45. The value of the items that the robber took is totally irrelevant. Robbery is by definition violent.

Generally being defined as the use of force or threat of force in order to steal something.

Being robbed is a horrible, traumatic experience for most victims.

[Dappleganger]

50. This thread is a great example of the reading comprehension of people on DU.

[Renew Deal]

51. Armed robbery where all he got away with was a pack of socks

And a repeat offender. :hi:

[Taitertots]

73. Why are we arguing about his sentence?

We should be outraged because our prison system does not rehabilitate. We failed this man. We pushed him out of our failed prison system with no means to support himself.

[Nye Bevan]

76. The benefits to sociey from better prison rehabilitation would be enormous

The problem is that the cost of rehabilitation comes directly out of the prison and state budgets as an immediate expense, while the benefits to society at large come over the long term and are not easy to quantify in dollar terms. In general politicians are not courageous enough to spend money today where the benefits will not be seen until after they next come up for re-election.

[Obamanaut]

98. Or, after several periods of incarceration rehab wears off. nt

[no limit]

91. I think the moral of this story is don't go out and commit armed robbery

Especially not 2 months after you got out of prison.

The fact he was stealing $4 socks (how fucking stupid are you to steal $4 socks) doesn't matter. What matters is he pulled a gun on an innocent person in the process of stealing those socks.

[dionysus]

95. cheney getting away with crimes doesnt excuse armed robbery.

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

97. An inept armed robber with poor judgment about what to steal is still an armed robber.

How about we get all the non-violent pot smokers out of prison before we start weeping for the armed robbers?

[Dank Nugs]

99. Yeah, if I were the Juror, I would disregard the Judge

and take into consideration his intent. Obviously, the circumstances that resulted in this dude stealing articles of clothing is a pretty fucked up one. But it costs the taxpayers money to house this guy for the rest of his life. I would take into consideration his intent. He obviously did not want to use the gun. He just lifted the shirt to show it, but never pulled it. I'd say he just wanted the guy to back off. He must have been in a pretty desperate situation if he resorted to stealing clothes. It was just a perfect storm of socioeconomic circumstances. Jail time should be about rehabilitation and educating the person who committed the crime, not put them into a negative cycle where they are a detriment to society instead of contributing to it.

Educate them, teach them skills so that they can become productive citizens of society and not have to resort to crime in order to survive. I don't fault them for that. A man has the right to be self-reliant and when he is in circumstances that force him to commit harm to others in order to do so, it's understandable. I don't condone it though. No person has a right to harm another.

That said, I'd have nullfied that jury. I don't agree with the law, and I can exercise my right to nullfication, were I on the jury.