Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s improperly admitted the inspection report because it related to a different machine than the one used in the Defendant’s breath test. The Defendant relied on State v. Miller, N3-2009-0223A, 2010 WL 390915 (R.I. Super. 01/29/10), where a judge granted a motion to suppress the results of a chemical breath test because the serial numbers on the test machine and in the report were different. Here, the Court distinguished Miller, holding that here there was no ambiguity concerning which machine was used because there was only one machine at the barracks. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial magistrate’s evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and upheld the decision to sustain the violation.