Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop sign), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-7 (places where overtaking prohibited), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-6 (clearance for overtaking). The Defendant argued that the Panel erred when it found that her convictions were not clearly erroneous because the Sergeant’s testimony was not persuasive. The District Court noted that the Court’s role is limited when reviewing factual determinations of the Panel to determine only if the Panel was clearly erroneous. The Court held that since the Sergeant’s testimony was competent evidence upon which the trial magistrate had every right to rely, it had no basis upon which to set aside the decision. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.