In Commonwealth v. Ayers, 17 Va. App. 401, 437 S.E.2d 580 (1993), the Court addressed the appellee's adjudication as an habitual offender based on three convictions under North Carolina law. Our focus in Ayers was on the North Carolina and Virginia statutes, which we found not to substantially conform on their face. The Court noted that while Code 18.2-266 created a rebuttable presumption that a driver found to have a blood alcohol level ("BAL") of .10% at the time he was tested had violated the statute, North Carolina's counterpart, N.C.Gen.Stat. 20-138.1(a)(2), created a conclusive presumption that one found to have BAL of .10% had violated the law. See Ayers, 17 Va. App. at 404, 437 S.E.2d at 582. On that ground, the Court found the North Carolina statute did not substantially conform to Virginia law and that the appellee's conviction under North Carolina law could not serve as a predicate offense for adjudication as an habitual offender under Code 46.2-351.