alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: AMO DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Appellant

______________________

2023-1470

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

00856.

-------------------------------------------------

ALCON INC., ALCON VISION, LLC, ALCON 

LABORATORIES, INC., ALCON RESEARCH, LLC,

Appellants

v.

AMO DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2023-1281, 2023-1282, 2023-1284, 2023-1286, 2023-1287, 

2023-1288, 2023-1289, 2023-1290, 2023-1291, 2023-1292, 

2023-1293, 2023-1294

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-

00817, IPR2021-00823, IPR2021-00824, IPR2021-00825, 

Case: 23-1281 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2023
2 IN RE: AMO DEVELOPMENT, LLC

IPR2021-00835, IPR2021-00839, IPR2021-00840, 

IPR2021-00841, IPR2021-00853, IPR2021-00856, 

IPR2021-00858, and IPR2021-00862.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

The court construes the parties’ notice of agreement, 

ECF No. 15 in Appeal No. 2023-1281, as a joint motion to 

dismiss Appeal Nos. 2023-1281, -1282, -1284, -1286, -1287,

‐1288, -1289, -1290, -1291, -1292, -1293, and -1294, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), and for 

Alcon Inc., Alcon Vision, LLC, Alcon Laboratories, Inc., and 

Alcon Research, LLC to withdraw from Appeal 

No. 2023-1470.

Upon consideration thereof,

Case: 23-1281 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2023
IN RE: AMO DEVELOPMENT, LLC 3

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeals are deconsolidated to the extent that Appeal Nos. 2023-1281, -1282, 

-1284, ‐1286, -1287, -1288, -1289, -1290, -1291, -1292, 

-1293, and -1294 are dismissed, and the official captions 

and the short caption for Appeal No. 2023-1470 are revised 

as reflected above. 

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs relative to the 

dismissed appeals.

(3) The briefing schedule for Appeal No. 2023-1470 is 

stayed.

(4) Within 30 days from the date of filing of this order, 

the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is 

directed to inform this court whether it intends to intervene in Appeal No. 2023-1470. 

(5) If the PTO elects to participate as intervenor in Appeal No. 2023-1470, its docketing statement is due within 

14 days of the date of filing of its notice of intervention. 

March 27, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

 

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to Appeal Nos. 2023-1281,

‐1282, -1284, -1286, -1287, -1288, -1289, -1290, ‐1291,

‐1292, ‐1293, and -1294 only): March 27, 2023

cc: United States Patent and Trademark Office 

Case: 23-1281 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 03/27/2023
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59223-59224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23689]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS) for 
Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (CPA) Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 227 (CPA Sale 227)

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of CPA Sale 227.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: BOEM announces the availability of the Proposed NOS for

[[Page 59224]]

proposed CPA Sale 227. This Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR 
556.29(c) as a matter of information to the public. With regard to oil 
and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to 
Section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, provides affected States the 
opportunity to review the Proposed NOS. The Proposed NOS sets forth the 
proposed terms and conditions of the sale, including minimum bids, 
royalty rates, and rentals.

DATES: Affected States may comment on the size, timing, and location of 
proposed CPA Sale 227 within 60 days following their receipt of the 
Proposed NOS. The Final NOS will be published in the Federal Register 
at least 30 days prior to the date of bid opening. Bid opening is 
currently scheduled for March 20, 2013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Proposed NOS for CPA Sale 227 and a 
``Proposed Notice of Sale Package'' containing information essential to 
potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, 
Gulf of Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood 
Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. Telephone: (504) 
736-2519.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Dixon, Leasing Division Chief, 
Donna.Dixon@boem.gov.

    Dated: September 18, 2012.
Tommy P. Beaudreau,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
 [FR Doc. 2012-23689 Filed 9-24-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-2251: SHOCKWAVE MEDICAL, INC. v. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"m6g53xs7fD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-18-2022-20-2251-shockwave-medical-inc-v-cardiovascular-systems-inc-rule-36-judgment-20-2251-rule_36_judgment-1-18-2022_1893790\/\">20-2251: SHOCKWAVE MEDICAL, INC. v. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-18-2022-20-2251-shockwave-medical-inc-v-cardiovascular-systems-inc-rule-36-judgment-20-2251-rule_36_judgment-1-18-2022_1893790\/embed\/#?secret=m6g53xs7fD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-2251: SHOCKWAVE MEDICAL, INC. v. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"m6g53xs7fD\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: SHOCKWAVE MEDICAL, INC. v. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-2251 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16857]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33891]


Central Gulf Railway, Inc.--Lease and Operation Exemption--
Terminal Railway Alabama State Docks

    Central Gulf Railway, Inc. (CGR), a noncarrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease certain rail 
lines from the Terminal Railway Alabama State Docks (TASD), an agency 
of the State of Alabama, and operate either directly or through the use 
of a contract agent approximately 0.46 miles of rail line. The rail 
lines to be leased are located in TASD's Frascati Yard in Mobile, AL. 
CGR will be leasing Track Nos. 1, 2, and 4, beginning at a point of 
interchange with TASD 90 feet east of Ezra Trice Boulevard and 
extending east 590 feet for Track Nos. 1 and 2 and, 1271 feet for Track 
No. 4. CGR certifies that its projected revenues will not exceed those 
that would qualify it as a Class III carrier.
    The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or after June 30, 
2000.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33891, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must 
be served on Karl Morell, Esq., BALL JANIK, LLP, 1455 F Street, NW, 
Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: June 27, 2000.
    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16857 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
#### Leonora Z. Johnson et al. v. Joseph G. Thorpe, Jr., et al.

Filed June 18, 1895.

No. 6002.

Mortgage Foreclosure: Confirmation op Sale: Review. In an error proceeding to secure a review of an order of confirmation of a sale of real estate, made by virtue of an order of sale issued to enforce a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage, where an examination of the record and evidence presented and considered on the hearing of the motion to confirm the sale, discloses that the conclusion reached by the trial judge was fully sustained by such record and evidence, the order of confirmation will be affirmed.

Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Irvine, J.

*L. D. Holmes,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Isaac Adams, contra.*

Harrison, J.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage upon the north one-half of lot 19 in J. E. Riley’s subdivision of lots Nos. 54 and 55 of S. E. Rogers’ plat of Oklahoma addition to the city of Omaha, such proceedings were had as resulted in a decree of foreclosure of the mortgage, to enforce which an order of sale was duly issued, directed to one Joseph Coleman as special master commissioner, and who, pur*348suant to its commands, advertised and sold the premises and made return of the sale. The property was purchased by the defendant in error. A motion to confirm the sale was made on behalf of defendant in error, in opposition to which there was filed by plaintiff in error a number of objections to a confirmation, supported, in respect to the facts involved, by affidavits. Affidavits to sustain the motion were also filed. The court, on hearing, reached a conclusion favorable to the motion and ordered the sale confirmed, and the unsuccessful parties have prosecuted an error proceeding to this court to secure a review of such order.

Of the objections presented in the trial court to the confirmation of the sale, the plaintiff in error urges but three in this court, viz.: First, *“*because it does not appear that the purchaser had paid the amount of his bid before confirmation ;” second, *“*because the property was not sold to the highest bidder;” third, “ because the property was sold after the hour at which the sale was advertised had expired.” We have carefully examined the whole record, including the affidavits of the parties, and it convinces us that the conclusions reached by the trial judge, that “the sale had been made in all respects in conformity to law,” was warranted by the facts, and the order of confirmation, based upon such finding, proper and right; hence it will be

Affirmed.

Irvine, C., not sitting.
EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 U. S. C. SECTION 1350
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period March 31,
2007 (the "Report"), Joey Schwartz Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                                 DATE: MAY 14, 2007


                                                 /S/ JOEY SCHWARTZ
                                                 --------------------
                                                 JOEY SCHWARTZ
                                                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Year-to-Date Activity 

as of December 27, 2013

Court or Agency of Origin

Pending as of 

10/01/13

Docketed 

10/01/13 to date

Terminated 

10/01/13 to date

Currently 

Pending 

Boards of Contract Appeals 8 6 2 12

Court of Federal Claims 119 35 34 120

Court of International Trade 55 5 6 54

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 104 39 55 88

District Courts 438 137 93 482

Department of Justice 2 2 0 4

Department of Veterans Affairs 1 0 0 1

International Trade Commission 19 5 7 17

Merit Systems Protection Board 104 56 60 100

Office of Personnel Management 0 0 0 0

Office of Compliance 0 2 0 2

Patent & Trademark Office 118 41 37 122

Writs 15 14 15 14

TOTAL 983 342 309 1016
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-1511: Bd. of Trustees of Univ. IL v. Micron Technology, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uWB6WwM0S7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-03-2018-2018-1511-bd-of-trustees-of-univ-il-v-micron-technology-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1511: Bd. of Trustees of Univ. IL v. Micron Technology, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-03-2018-2018-1511-bd-of-trustees-of-univ-il-v-micron-technology-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=uWB6WwM0S7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1511: Bd. of Trustees of Univ. IL v. Micron Technology, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"uWB6WwM0S7\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Bd. of Trustees of Univ. IL v. Micron Technology, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1511 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
ACTIVE PERMITTED CLASS IID WELLS IN NEW YORK

WELL NAME WELL 

CLASS

LATITUDE LONGITUDE MAX 

INJECTION 

PRESSURE 

(PSIG)

MAXIMUM 

PERMITTED 

INJECTION RATE

INJECTION 

ZONE

2009 

INJECTED 

VOLUMEGALLONS

INJECTION 

DEPTH (Feet 

Below Surface)

COUNTY

National Fuel 

SC-546

IID 42.071968 -77.742266 10 3500 bbl/day Oriskany 

Sandstone

6,336,900 4678-4708 Allegany

Columbia Gas 

H-229

IID 42.165 -77.665556 2000 1500 bbl/day Max

600 bbl/day monthly 

avg.

Oriskany 

Sandstone

476,300* 4354-4375 Steuben

Lenape Ranous 

#1

IID 42.9583 -77.8333 29 2000 bbl/day 

instantaneous

400 bbl/day over 24 

hours

Salina 

Formation

100,040 640-700 Livingston

Inergy 

Midstream Well 

#8

IID 42.308889 -77.255833 1538 13,714 bbl/day for 24 

hours

10,300 bbl/day monthly 

avg.

Queenston 

Formation

814,931 5197-6000 Steuben

U.S. Gypsum 

Diver 1A

IID 43.024722 -78.313333 500 285 bbl/day for 24 

hours

50 bbl/day monthly 

avg.

Medina 

Sandstone

0 1003-1054 Genesee

Chesapeake 

Energy Quill 

762-1

IID 42.928973 -76.713612 398 250 bbl/day Queenston 

Formation

289 1479-1642 Cayuga

* Columbia H-229 injected volume is through September 2009.
# Comments on: 22-1993: MELTON v. MSPB [ORDER], Nonprecedential
```

[House Report 111-684]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-684

======================================================================

 
   WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
 RULES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

                                _______
                                

 December 17 (legislative day of December 16), 2010.--Referred to the 
                House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

              Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1771]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 1771, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The resolution applies the 
waiver to any resolution reported through the legislative day 
of December 24, 2010. The resolution authorizes the Speaker to 
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time 
through the legislative day of December 24, 2010. The Speaker 
or her designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
pursuant to section 2 of the resolution.

                                  

```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       527,542,309
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  39,696,999
<MORTGAGE>                                  44,982,835
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  449,910
<TOTAL-INVEST>                           1,013,644,536
<CASH>                                      21,691,317
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          13,473,194
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                     173,018,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,379,769,373
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            200,416,921
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         51,994,368
<POLICY-OTHER>                              50,910,093
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                      671,871,005
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                            102,184,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,967,253
<OTHER-SE>                                 208,582,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,379,769,373
<PREMIUMS>                                 191,607,931
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         57,498,766
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             283,419
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                 109,971,884
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 19,118,875
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        87,525,832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             29,726,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                 9,517,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         20,208,751
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                20,208,751
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>