alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Penford
Corporation (the "Company") for the three months and nine months ended May 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Steven O. Cordier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:  July 15, 2003



/s/ Steven O. Cordier
----------------------------------------
Steven O. Cordier
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Probe Manufacturing, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:  (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  November 19, 2010By: /s/ Kambiz MahdiChief Executive OfficerDateKambiz Mahdi  The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period year ended December 31, 2009, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general information language in such filing.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30805 Summary Calendar

GERARDO A. URREGO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JANET RENO; DORIS MEISSNER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1328

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gerardo A. Urrego, prisoner #61191-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Urrego contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h)(1) requires the Attorney General to deport him prior to the execution of his 292-month sentence. As the district court determined, the statute authorizes the Attorney General to act. Urrego has failed to demonstrate thatNo. 96-30805 - 2 - the Attorney General has a clear duty to act and thus he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Smith v. North La. Medical Review Ass'n , 735 F.2d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 1984). Urrego has abandoned his claim under the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to assert it on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Urrego’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kolja
Rockov, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










/s/  Kolja
Rockov


Kolja
Rockov


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date:
February 25, 2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

IH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVIN ALEJANDRO ABREGOHERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73916

Agency No. A043-735-121

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Evin Alejandro Abrego-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for

FILED

DEC 08 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
IH/Research 2 07-73916

cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye

v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo questions

of law, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the

petition for review. 

The transcript of the plea colloquy in the record establishes that AbregoHernandez pled “no contest” to the California offense of being a felon in

possession of a firearm. The agency accordingly did not err in concluding that

Abrego-Hernandez’s conviction for violating California Penal Code § 12021(a)(1)

was for an offense “described in” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and therefore an

aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). See United States v. De

Jesus Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2001); see also 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(48)(A) (a plea of nolo contendre resulting in some form of punishment is

a conviction for immigration purposes). 

We reject Abrego-Hernandez’s contentions regarding his allegedly defective

criminal convictions, as we cannot collaterally reexamine these convictions here. 

See Ortega de Robles v. INS, 58 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1995).
IH/Research 3 07-73916

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal

on the ground that Abrego-Hernandez failed to establish a nexus to a statutorily

protected ground. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2007); Lim

v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Abrego-Hernandez did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the

instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. 

See Arteaga, 511 F.3d at 948-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 68 FR 51376, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 17.540 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
### §§221, 222. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–621, §10(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3379

Section 221, R.S. §4856; June 25, 1936, ch. 804, 49 Stat. 1921; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §32(b), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §127, 63 Stat. 107, related to discharge of insane patients on bond.

Section 222, R.S. §4857, provided that no insane person not charged with any breach of the peace should ever be confined in the United States jail in the District of Columbia.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1987, see section 12(b) of Pub. L. 98–621, set out as an Effective Date note under section 225 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Mary Penndorf, as Executrix, etc., of Margarethe Knaus, Deceased, Respondent. George Knaus and Others, Appellants.

*Decedent's estate*— *accounting.*

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York, entered on the 39th day. of November, 1913, denying a motion to vacate and set aside a referee’s report.

Per Curiam:

The evidence was insufficient to establish a gift to Mrs. Penndorf of the check for $10,175 received by the testatrix in payment of the Harris mortgage. The refusal of the referee to charge the executrix with the $1,500 drawn from the Harlem Savings Bank and the $478.70 remaining on deposit to the credit of the account in that bank was against the weight of evidence, as was likewise his failure to charge the executrix with the $1,451.31 drawn from the .German Savings Bank and invested in the Messerschmidt mortgage, all of the moneys to make up which seem to have belonged to the deceased. The failure of the referee to charge the executrix with $1,060.45, the amount of the deposit in the Harlem Savings Bank, was likewise against the weight of evidence, and the same is true of the $1,058.60, the amount of the deposit in the Bowery Savings Bank. We think that it is fairly to be inferred from the evidence that the deceased commonly used Mrs. Penndorf as the medium through which *842she transacted her business, including her deposits of money "with banks and her investments. The evidence also indicates that there may have been a confusion of moneys which were the separate property of Mrs. Penndorf, and which were not derived from the deceased, with moneys of the latter, but to what extent it is impossible to say. It niay also be inferred that a portion of the $10,175 check, and perhaps of other sums which came into the hands of Mrs. Penndorf, were reinvested by her in some mortgage or other security, thus creating an apparent duplication of items. The referee improperly admitted much evidence of a hearsay and otherwise improper nature. A new trial will afford an opportunity to bring out the facts with greater clearness and to avoid the admission of palpably incompetent testimony. For these reasons the decree is reversed, with costs to abide event, the order of reference vacated and the matter referred to a new referee to be appointed by this court. Present — Ingraham, P. J.. McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Hotchkiss, JJ. Decree reversed, with costs to abide event, order of reference vacated and matter referred to a new referee to be appointed by this court. Order to be settled on notice.
#### MARSH, et al, Respondents, v. GOEHRING, Appellant.

(239 N. W. 917.)

(File No. 7206.

Opinion filed January 11, 1932.)

*Tom Kirby,*of Sioux Falls, for Appellant.

*Dunham & Clark,*of Clark, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action brought to recover the amount due upon a certain promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage upon real property securing said note. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs upon the note and for the foreclosure of the mortgage. The trial court further decreed that, if the proceeds of such mortgage sale should be insufficient to pay the amount of the note, the plaintiffs have judgment against the defendant for any such deficiency.

*We*have carefully reviewed the assignments of error' and conclude that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

All the Judges concur, excepting WARREN, J., absent and. not sitting.
Exhibit
13.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of eFuture Information Technology
Inc. (the “Company”) (the “Report”), I, Yu Ping, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Exchange Act of 1934; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




October
      12, 2009
              
              /s/
      Yu PingYu
      PingChief
      Financial Officer
#### § 670.900 Are damages caused by the acts or omissions of students eligible for payment under the Federal Tort Claims Act?

Yes, students are considered Federal employees for purposes of the FTCA (28 U.S.C. 2671 *et seq.*). Claims for such damage should be filed pursuant to the procedures found in 29 CFR part 15, subpart D.

[77 FR 22207, Apr. 13, 2012]
Exhibit 13.1

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each undersigned officer of
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2014 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |        |  |                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: 24 March 2015 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Carlos Brito                    
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Carlos Brito                        
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer             
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: 24 March 2015 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Felipe Dutra                    
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Felipe Dutra                        
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial & Technology Officer
Table 26

U. S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation

Central Valley Operations Office

Preliminary Data Subject to Change San Luis and Cross Valley Canals

2015

Monthly Deliveries in AF

Water User Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

SAN LUIS CANAL

City of Avenal 125 118 149 150 163 183 185 194 191 182 149 142 1,931

City of Coalinga 225 253 203 350 303 375 492 458 467 483 233 332 4,174

City of Dos Palos 72 66 81 74 85 79 92 91 81 83 82 86 972

City of Huron 49 45 64 58 68 77 71 91 81 70 52 46 772

Pacheco WD 118 0 11 38 7 0 0 0 0 0 35 70 279

Pacheco CCID Non-project (Hamburg) 0 536 102 233 285 330 197 94 146 76 0 0 1,999

Panoche WD 210 878 972 1,391 1,777 2,597 2,678 1,463 988 973 77 28 14,032

San Luis WD 1,790 2,988 4,526 5,830 8,195 9,036 8,853 4,440 5,217 5,201 674 6 56,756

Westlands WD 2,752 6,067 11,109 17,216 24,048 34,797 31,443 17,833 14,038 9,390 3,867 2,416 174,976

Mendota WMA (CDFG) (via WWD Lateral 4) 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

Mendota WMA (CDFG) (via WWD Lateral 6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kern National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS) 1,341 888 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,640 3,532 2,054 10,455

0

Total 6,682 11,840 17,217 25,341 34,931 47,474 44,012 24,664 21,209 19,098 8,701 5,180 266,349

O'NEILL FOREBAY DELIVERIES

O'Neill Forebay Wildlife 93 57 38 89 35 71 120 61 75 66 32 136 873

San Luis WD Ag 23 51 91 214 438 394 254 101 152 115 9 15 1,857

San Luis M&I 16 20 30 33 34 38 43 50 37 30 25 18 374

VA Cemetery 5 1 6 19 30 39 40 30 20 14 2 4 210

Total 137 129 165 355 537 542 457 242 284 225 68 173 3,314

CROSS VALLEY CANAL (See Note 1 below)

County of Fresno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

County of Tulare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lower Tule River ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pixley ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kern-Tulare WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hills-Valley ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tri-Valley ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SAN FELIPE DIVISION

Santa Clara (including Casa De Fruta) 1,337 2,718 3,288 7,006 7,613 7,744 6,400 253 5,249 2,345 2,183 3,452 49,588

San Benito 577 244 216 225 418 554 639 26 279 238 155 172 3,743

Total 1,914 2,962 3,504 7,231 8,031 8,298 7,039 279 5,528 2,583 2,338 3,624 53,331

* Delivery data is based on District turn-out readings and may include water in addition to water service contract deliveries.

Note 1: Cross Valley Canal section represents delivereis on behalf of the contractors listed, not necessarily what flows went into the Cross Valley Canal.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 515.00

 514.43

 513.96

 513.70

 513.65

 513.61

 513.55

 513.49

 513.20

 512.72

 512.32

 511.62

 510.74

 509.90

 509.13

 508.71

 508.34

 507.70

 506.54

 505.77

 504.55

 503.67

 502.76

 501.92

 500.95

 500.01

 499.10

 498.00

 497.00

 496.20

 1,683,080

 1,676,295

 1,670,707

 1,667,618

 1,667,025

 1,666,550

 1,665,838

 1,665,125

 1,661,685

 1,655,995

 1,651,259

 1,642,982

 1,632,597

 1,622,705

 1,613,655

 1,608,726

 1,604,388

 1,596,895

 1,583,343

 1,574,369

 1,560,187

 1,549,984

 1,539,457

 1,529,762

 1,518,593

 1,507,796

 1,497,368

 1,484,796

 1,473,398

 1,464,301

STORAGE

-7,869

-6,785

-5,588

-3,089

-593

-475

-712

-713

-3,440

-5,690

-4,736

-8,277

-10,385

-9,892

-9,050

-4,929

-4,338

-7,493

-13,552

-8,974

-14,182

-10,203

-10,527

-9,695

-11,169

-10,797

-10,428

-12,572

-11,398

-9,097

CHANGE

0

0

0

0

663

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

PUMPING

 3,780

 3,300

 2,632

 1,633

 163

 0

 0

 0

 1,478

 2,718

 2,224

 3,958

 4,980

 5,041

 4,223

 2,198

 1,960

 3,756

 6,415

 4,460

 6,918

 4,973

 5,123

 4,795

 5,421

 5,372

 5,074

 6,071

 6,035

 4,552

POWER

 192

 184

 184

 205

 212

 208

 212

 196

 162

 203

 235

 265

 274

 257

 238

 240

 240

 292

 265

 254

 261

 258

 256

 247

 268

 280

 275

 281

 266

 295

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

+5

+63

-2

+281

-587

-32

-147

-163

-95

+52

+71

+50

+18

+311

-101

-47

+13

+271

-152

+190

+29

+86

+72

+154

+58

+208

+92

+13

+555

+261

OR

 77

 96

 46

 115

 127

 115

 131

 115

 96

 119

 107

 84

 160

 202

 148

 125

 140

 174

 147

 170

 113

 98

 90

 116

 104

 100

 178

 148

 202

 176

C.F.S.

 .20

 .25

 .12

 .30

 .33

 .30

 .34

 .30

 .25

 .31

 .28

 .22

 .42

 .53

 .39

 .33

 .37

 .46

 .39

 .45

 .30

 .26

 .24

 .31

 .28

 .27

 .48

 .40

 .55

 .48

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR June 25, 2008

DAILY OPERATIONS

APRIL 2008 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -226,648 663 109,253 7,205 0 +1,527 3,819 10.11 .03

ACRE-FEET -226,648 1,315 216,703 14,291 0 +3,029 7,575

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 216,703

PACHECO TUNNEL 14,291 TOTAL 230,994

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2007 TO DATE = 7.72

 1,690,949

SPILL 0 .03

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17
### §2429b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. III, §671, as added Pub. L. 95–88, title I, §130, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 543, which related to notification of program changes, was transferred to section 2394–1 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                          28,611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                     13,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,283
<PP&E>                                          81,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,194
<SALES>                                        202,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,625
<CGS>                                          155,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    33
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,491
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,015
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,015
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.94


</TABLE>