CCuf\ 4fW- (jO li'StiVnr'ScoW\^
\*> Qo^-eJbz uocAa -fa
cmJ cUV^TOV/U CoC-^ •C \J&% i v<eyvess <3^y\
Cx/\
ofifar 4o 4^ -&l<zJ■Ad°V'vc1 U<^3■0 i-s \-\- '-Vkp4
-vW4 4rW-Vb *5*41 flwrvd cLeAiver*?~eM<o^r\
n4- oA d\r amouhV up 4b
^oV Hm dervVei ^os§-ess(or\6\*WOo
4) \a)Vw cird Wecr^ f WrV £m^^oc
itevlb, <Mi«w,ys+ r*P*- M"?
mrni you »t !« dri^+W- ®rr«.+
m[) vv)WV \s o- C3 VJeADS
CJDW<p
Orb
^e<xO ^
(sW-W\ C<w®|iVv0i K"^> w«.y
■(/WpVo^oo £br
-Vo run.
•04er^ 4rW^r odAoiyas pt*^
lina license , vvxt)OVv
ltew>m ..c-b^«d IA

Whether the court can compare Wilson's vagueness on an element to suggest possession with intent to sell and deliver