Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant claimed the state failed to prove what kind of PBT she took and that the trial judge improperly “pyramided inferences” when he found the PBT she used operated on fuel-cell technology. The District Court held that it was not improper for the trial judge to infer that the PBT the defendant used operated on fuel-cell technology because the distributor of PBTs testified that he issued a “Drager 6510” (which operates on fuel-cell technology) to the citing officer, instructed all departments to discard any PBT that was not a Drager 6510, and seized all other machines that were not Drager 6510s. Accordingly, the Court held that the Appeals Panel’s decision was not clearly erroneous where they held that the defendant used a PBT utilizing fuel-cell technology and sustained the violation against the defendant.