alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 333.150 Labeling of first aid antibiotic drug products. ( a ) *Statement of identity.* The labeling of the product contains the established name of the drug, if any, and identifies the product as a “first aid antibiotic.”
( b ) *Indications.* The labeling of the product states, under the heading “Indications,” the following: “First aid to help” [select one of the following: “prevent,” (“decrease” (“the risk of” or “the chance of”)), (“reduce” (“the risk of” or “the chance of”)), “guard against,” or “protect against”] [select one of the following: “infection,” “bacterial contamination,” or “skin infection”] “in minor cuts, scrapes, and burns.” Other truthful and nonmisleading statements describing only the indications for use that have been established and listed in this paragraph (b), may also be used, as provided in § 330.1(c)(2), subject to the provisions of section 502 of the act relating to misbranding and the prohibition in section 301(d) of the act against the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of unapproved new drugs in violation of section 505(a) of the act.
( c ) *Warnings.* The labeling of the product contains the following warnings under the heading “Warnings”: ( 1 ) “For external use only. Do not use in the eyes or apply over large areas of the body. In case of deep or puncture wounds, animal bites, or serious burns, consult a doctor.”
( 2 ) *For products containing chlortetracycline hydrochloride or tetracycline hydrochloride.* “Stop use and consult a doctor if the condition persists or gets worse. Do not use longer than 1 week unless directed by doctor.”
( 3 ) *For any product containing bacitracin, bacitracin zinc, neomycin, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B, and/or polymyxin B sulfate.* “Stop use and consult a doctor if the condition persists or gets worse, or if a rash or other allergic reaction develops. Do not use if you are allergic to any of the ingredients. Do not use longer than 1 week unless directed by a doctor.”
( d ) *Directions.* The labeling of the product contains the following statements under the heading “Directions”: ( 1 ) *For ointment and cream products.* “Clean the affected area. Apply a small amount of this product (an amount equal to the surface area of the tip of a finger) on the area 1 to 3 times daily. May be covered with a sterile bandage.”
( 2 ) *For powder products.* “Clean the affected area. Apply a light dusting of the powder on the area 1 to 3 times daily. May be covered with a sterile bandage.”
( 3 ) *For aerosol products.* “Clean the affected area. Spray a small amount of this product on the area 1 to 3 times daily. May be covered with a sterile bandage.”
( e ) The word “doctor” may be substituted for the word “physician” in any of the labeling statements in this subpart.
[52 FR 47332, Dec. 11, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 58472, Nov. 15, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 314
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 314 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 81 FR 69639, Oct. 6, 2016.

§ 314.100 Timeframes for reviewing applications and abbreviated applications. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, within 180 days of receipt of an application for a new drug under section 505(b) of the act or an abbreviated application for a new drug under section 505(j) of the act, FDA will review it and send the applicant either an approval letter under § 314.105 or a complete response letter under § 314.110. This 180-day period is called the “initial review cycle.”
( b ) At any time before approval, an applicant may withdraw an application under § 314.65 or an abbreviated application under § 314.99 and later submit it again for consideration.
( c ) The initial review cycle may be adjusted by mutual agreement between FDA and an applicant or as provided in §§ 314.60 and 314.96, as the result of a major amendment.
[73 FR 39609, July 10, 2008]
38858.

#### E. L. B. & A. CORPORATION v. GEORGIA IMPLEMENT & TRUCK COMPANY.

Decided May 18, 1961.

*Rogers & Turoff, Jack Turoff,*for plaintiff in error.

*Marion A. Sarns,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The dismissal of a cross-action is not such a final judgment as may be reviewed by this court on a bill of exceptions assigning error only on such a judgment. The amendment to the rules of practice and procedure, approved January 19, 1957 (Ga. L. 1957, pp. 224, 230; *Code Ann.*§ 6-701), did not repeal or modify this rule. *Williams v. Kwik Shake Dispenser Mfg. Co.,*214 Ga. 478 (105 S. E. 2d 457) and cit.

*Writ of eri'or dismissed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7404 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7404

   To require annual reports on counter illicit cross-border tunnel 
                  operations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2024

 Mr. Crane (for himself, Mr. Correa, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Gosar, 
Mr. Guest, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Luttrell, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. 
    Ogles) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require annual reports on counter illicit cross-border tunnel 
                  operations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Subterranean Border Defense Act''.

SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORTS ON COUNTER ILLICIT CROSS-BORDER TUNNEL 
              OPERATIONS.

    Paragraph (2) of section 7134(a) of the James M. Inhofe National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117-263; 6 
U.S.C. 257 note) is amended by inserting ``and annually thereafter'' 
after ``development of the strategic plan''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 348.10 Analgesic, anesthetic, and antipruritic active ingredients. The active ingredient of the product consists of any of the following within the specified concentration established for each ingredient: ( a ) *Male genital desensitizers.* ( 1 ) Benzocaine, 3 to 7.5 percent in a water-soluble base.
( 2 ) Lidocaine in a metered spray with approximately 10 milligrams per spray.
( b ) [Reserved]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

VICTOR GARCIA SANTOS, AKA

Victor Garcia-Santos, AKA Victor Santos,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50122

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00916-PA-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Victor Garcia Santos (Santos) appeals his convictions

and 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of

possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C). Santos contends that the district court erred by denying

FILED

JUL 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
his motion to suppress heroin discovered in his car. Santos also appeals the written

judgment insofar as one condition of supervised release differs from a condition

orally pronounced at his sentencing hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Reviewing the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its underlying

factual findings for clear error, see United States v. I.E.V., 705 F.3d 430, 434 (9th

Cir. 2012), we conclude that the motion to suppress was properly denied. 

Under the totality of the circumstances, the officers’ use of guns to detain

Santos did not transform an investigatory stop into an arrest, and therefore, the

officers did not need probable cause to detain Santos; reasonable suspicion, which

they had, was enough. See Green v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 751 F.3d

1039, 1047-49 (9th Cir. 2014). Santos was a suspected narcotics trafficker and he

reached under his seat cushion in response to the officers’ approach, indicating that

he was possibly reaching for a weapon. See Haynie v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 339

F.3d 1071, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2003). Drawing firearms was a reasonable response

to legitimate officer safety concerns. See, e.g., Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles,

308 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Because Santos appeared to reach under his seat cushion when he saw the

officers approach, the officers were permitted to remove him from the car, frisk

2
him, and conduct a protective search of “the area within [Santos’] immediate

control . . .” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1048 (1983) (citation omitted). 

When they did, they lawfully found drugs under his seat. See id.

Finally, the written judgment controls over the ambiguous and apparently

misstated oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d

1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

3
**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 China Dongsheng International, Inc.. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies 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; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company, and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






Date:
                October 12, 2007
            CHINA
                DONGSHENG INTERNATIONAL, INC./s/
                Aidong
                YuBy:
                Aidong YuIts:
                Chief Financial Officer
DATE BURNED FUELS LBS HRS #/HR %C02i ppmCO ppmCH Tf Ta L1 L2 L3 EFF%

12/8/2011 WKGBD CW5 13.2 5.33 2.48 1.73 536 1093 235.2 81.9 31.55 1.715 5.68 61.06
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7926

EUGENE R. DANIELS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER NEAL; NFN SEWELL; MAJOR RILEY; WARDEN JOHNSON; NFN MULLENAX; NURSE BEIFIELT; DOCTOR EDWARDS; NFN MONTGOMERY; D. SBYANT; NFN MAST; NFN HAMILTON; NURSE CROCKER; NFN WILLIAMS; NFN MCGREW; BOBO; CAPTAIN MILLER; NFN WADE; NFN SMITH; NFN ISGRIGG; NFN ULTMAN; MALE NURSE GREEN; LIEUTENANT HART; NFN KUMINSKY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-4084-7) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene R. Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide, VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Eugene R. Daniels appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Daniels v. Neal , No. CA-99-4084-7 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 19, 2001 & entered Oct. 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 312
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 312.84 Risk-benefit analysis in review of marketing applications for drugs to treat life-threatening and severely-debilitating illnesses. ( a ) FDA's application of the statutory standards for marketing approval shall recognize the need for a medical risk-benefit judgment in making the final decision on approvability. As part of this evaluation, consistent with the statement of purpose in § 312.80, FDA will consider whether the benefits of the drug outweigh the known and potential risks of the drug and the need to answer remaining questions about risks and benefits of the drug, taking into consideration the severity of the disease and the absence of satisfactory alternative therapy.
( b ) In making decisions on whether to grant marketing approval for products that have been the subject of an end-of-phase 1 meeting under § 312.82, FDA will usually seek the advice of outside expert scientific consultants or advisory committees. Upon the filing of such a marketing application under § 314.101 or part 601 of this chapter, FDA will notify the members of the relevant standing advisory committee of the application's filing and its availability for review.
( c ) If FDA concludes that the data presented are not sufficient for marketing approval, FDA will issue a complete response letter under § 314.110 of this chapter or the biological product licensing procedures. Such letter, in describing the deficiencies in the application, will address why the results of the research design agreed to under § 312.82, or in subsequent meetings, have not provided sufficient evidence for marketing approval. Such letter will also describe any recommendations made by the advisory committee regarding the application.
( d ) Marketing applications submitted under the procedures contained in this section will be subject to the requirements and procedures contained in part 314 or part 600 of this chapter, as well as those in this subpart.
[53 FR 41523, Oct. 21, 1988, as amended at 73 FR 39607, July 10, 2008]
t. i ( .. · 

·~ . RFClE~VfED• .~~ L\ 

. · COURtn~C~HVliNAt AW~S . 

JUL 2 3 2015 
1 ·.\ 

. ..-. -_o~A~\)-u,J*~o±- M.~~\J~\-d~-o~-\Cl~e-~~t~t_tM ~-n1Jt t\(;)~~tl~~t~t~e.J_·_· · _ 

\r e.LJt~\J~JA-iLl~3LtLlt-~-ClC\-~_± ~-CO\l ~ ~ cALl-~-~ 1~J~~~Cki\:OLi\~ -

_fktt~il~1~_ein-~~·\:r~±~~v 1-\-"1---ttCAt~-~~c\ :\:V\tS_· Chane Lt()--(J-C(W_e 

\ L V\; \ . '""'- (\O L ''\ .l...d \ ~ _ _ · () I l r I \ ~ -r lJ J , . -~- _;j: __ ~_()..M __ :r~\L\-\-=\-l-,-~_t_O_d:_\J_\)_\_ll-t1-1=--\l-e-~-t1__u_=-,~-1A_,-:!__:__ . 

_C(}~_q_tJ·_~ c ~ Ck r-~_Q_~_QJ_s_~~-t_/) ~· -~~ l ~ LGJlei}.u\tl_O-'l~-lA.-t\_~_:t-_c(,lA-t­

-~f f o fd :\ ha.!·_{kt_Q_L\~.-l-\.L<A-A~_:t_o_j£±~-~ ~~o_\) r *-'ttl:\-t)lf)__1:~ l&L1: ~\1~Ll~O \\ij\f~-t>~~s~o_/lt \\_Qf l_vSt_iu r~e-~ ~ ~-e_a.(s_o_ld - _QJV\c_~~-Di_~trJD_o~-i-~-Clb_~~~~~b-\o_e__lQ_~_o_ft~~~-O-Ld-ri.L\_g_­

I_\J_\k~-*"3-a_~L\_A_± \A ti't_\,±~:s ~~~-D-llt_~_QS~e-tv e~~~-~_c,_j_o_ 

· -~Jj_S_t)_os_o_r_1_lilS_ct_~t\£J~.C!*_t_O_(\s_:~~-wj_~_t_al\_o_Jtt~d's_fJe!_~_fy~te_,_~11-­

_\Ji~e.-~o QS_~ -~ ~-c-o_&_Q._~~ ~-s-et_6_t_u(\~-s-~e~do_n~ Le-± tv\~-ii~:~s . · __Q_\)_~t~e ·l ±~2-c_})_e-'-lA.US'_e._o_f_\kJ_S~c~ ~ r q_Q_._tyl~-~~ LL~-±t_LlJ_fu£_ . 

_tf\ 1\-~~~j_s_i\o.f nelfl~_a.._qobL7o~}.tl1~: fiLl oLtslJlLLI,'-v' · ~ 

_b_tll\__j (\ h_~tt_CAttd-±~-lA ~-M-~JD.o~S-rktt-~D±-u1 __ (A_g_o_tld_-eJJ.VJ_lf-O-'\~~ "'-\-

"'i-' ' \ '\ \ \-H ' l \j A I r' '· . . l \ ' I (. h ' r ~- -~w_\h.~-~-~lS~Q,_w. :1~_\J_ -"='\-V-'-~~~-ltAtlto~~fA-eA-fu~().il ~l_at~nila.tLl 

_(}~~-~t~ ~LQ_t_~_tt_-\-o__:_\(~-W-~LM ~ Q. ~o_r_~_L\llli-~~lt~-~-~-~-ilt-v}Llu1t· 

-~~-K~--dS~.Lg_o_t~ r o~ltl~~e __ S1~~M.~---±-~-P-t o+ \t fe_-\-bL\t_-:t~<liL_ 

~-~-Jl~_Q_~-d-~tl s Oi\~(1~_a_q_o_t>_d_~-\h-~_l!Llt\,_1__~e-e~~lA.-Ghuul_te- :!J . \ .L j...~ . ~. . ~ d I1 ~ l ' \_ . 1"' _ O_~_tO~J_e_L~=-t--'--(A±_}_LV~-~~ . -t-Q.- ~ ~ _ _.\ . 0 ~~-~~~S'-~\f~-UJUJSe ~ 

_\_~~; ~il1 f-LU,/\~ .\'i t_t~nM_\,JiSI).CnU) M ~ t S' ~-\r~UJ\&f_e&n0 -\-~Q i _t\_l_~M-~f ~~~"" ~ t· ~l&~(lei\-~-1-o~e CkV\ ~-:t-'--Ce.e~te_\_~ ~±_U;_d_ t\t 

~\rno_\J_~_D'\J-±_v_~~tXl~~1--~~ ~ tl f, {! \ S_\l . Rt f_e~SS.DA-W h4- _c_o-\l~-~~~~-, Co-~c~l1'i_tU11J~-~~~~L~-~ ~\ f\ co J flli_:_h_eLlll~S~e.~'-1.___\rl--l!·t 

_'\/JJ~.~: · ~ft\Q:\-_l_o f\~_\_jo_Q~_tlv_S'~Q_· ~ ~w lf<t -~ aS_~r_~~~(A~~~w}tb_{Y\~ .~ · · . 

'Seco~~-S:Dl\"'CA±--\kL-\:l.f'l> Qf<h£\.~~~111± 1 'S v\1\e~_-r, s-' ~ne~_\h_e . . • _Q_\e__CA.-=-b(f£~LJj_S_o_t_teJ! L\~~\J-LlS~~~. \~. i hLtt~h.-\:-S: ~CLLtLO f . 

'f"\\ a~~JL-~ Q_uJ ·w l lli~~~ l11 ~~'f-O_\JlL~~Y.s-/_D.ds.ll-_i_O_\L~ilt 

' . 

------~--~.-~\~ -~'.~.--

---:----~-------:--------:------~----c--~~-----'---~'· 

•
#### § 1402.5 Appeal procedure.

Appeals reviewed as a result of a denial will be routed to the Director of ONDCP, who will take action as necessary to determine whether any part of the information may be declassified. If so, the Director shall notify the requester of this determination and shall make any information available that is declassified and is otherwise releasable. If continued classification is required, the requester shall be notified by the Director of ONDCP of the reasons therefore.
EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF COMMODORE HOLDINGS LIMITED

1.       Albuferra Investments, Inc., a partially owned Panama corporation

2.       Almira Enterprises, Inc., a Panamanian corporation

3.       Azure Investments, Inc., a Panamanian corporation

4.       Capri Cruises, a partially owned Florida general partnership

5.       Commodore Cruises Limited, a Bermudan corporation

6.       Commodore Day Cruises Limited, a Bermudan corporation

7.       Coronado Seas, LLC, a partially owned Delaware limited liability
         corporation

8.       Crown Cruises Limited, a Bermudan corporation

9.       Crown Cruises of Panama, Inc., a Panamanian corporation

10.      New Commodore Cruise Lines Limited, a Bermudan corporation

11.      Sea-Comm, Ltd., a partially owned Liberian corporation

12.      Seahawk Limited, a partially owned Isle of Jersey corporation
[No. 40157-2-I.

Division One.

January 26, 1998.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estate of*K. William Edmark Tomima L. Edmark, et al., *Appellants,*v. Barry Kittoe, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-4-01705-2, John M. Darrah, J., entered December 31, 1996. *Dismissed*by unpublished opinion per Webster, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Agid, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<CASH>                                           1,731
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (852)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,539
<PP&E>                                          78,499
<DEPRECIATION>                                (32,053)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,161
<SALES>                                         17,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,109
<CGS>                                           14,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (470)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,647)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (36)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,683)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,683)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             871
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,260
<INVENTORY>                                      4,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,020
<PP&E>                                          38,537
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,287
<BONDS>                                         10,016
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,293
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,868
<SALES>                                          5,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,191
<CGS>                                            8,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,180
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (10.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (10.10)
        

</TABLE>