alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Cubic Corporation

 

We have reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of CubicCorporation as of June 30, 2010, and the related condensed consolidatedstatements of income and cash flows for the three- and nine-month periods endedJune 30, 2010 and 2009.  Thesefinancial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial informationconsists principally of applying analytical procedures, and making inquiries ofpersons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than anaudit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is theexpression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such anopinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modificationsthat should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referredto above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accountingprinciples.

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidatedbalance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30, 2009 and therelated consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity andcash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our reportdated December 9, 2009, we expressed an unqualified opinion on thoseconsolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth inthe accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30,2009, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to theconsolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

 

 
|                   | /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                   |                            |
|                   |                            |
| San  Diego, California |                            |
| August 3,  2010   |                            |

 

----
No. 10669.

#### The East Ohio Gas Co. *v.*Warren.

Decided June 9, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Kline, Tolies & Goff,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Hart, Canñeld & Croke*and *Messrs. Blandin, Rice & Ginn,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed on authority of *The L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co.*v. *Andrews, Admr.,*58 Ohio St., 426.

Price, C. J., Sitauck, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
1 Ogulei, David

From: Paddock, Nancy <nancy.paddock@veolia.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:29 AM To: Ogulei, David Cc: Dennis Warchol Subject: Greenhouse Gas numbers Attachments: Veolia GHG.xls

Hi David!

Hope you didn't think I forgot about you. : ) Att ached you will find the greenhouse gas spreadsheet. Hopefully this is what you need.

Have a great day!

Nancy

Nancy Paddock Environmental Engineering Specialist Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, IL 62201 618.271.2804 (x-115) 618.271.2128 (fax)



### Please note that my e-mail address has changed: Nancy.Paddock@Veolia.com

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutio ns, L.L.C. is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privi leged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you a re not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all cop ies of the original message and delete it from all computers.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

VERONICA RAMOS and ERVIN LOPEZ,

Appellants,
v. ELIZABETH PEREZ-DIAZ, D.M.D. n/k/a Elizabeth Perks, D.M.D.;

and JJP HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Appellees.
No. 2D23-533
March 22, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles Sniffen, Judge. Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellants. Elizabeth S. Wheeler of Berg & Wheeler, P.A., Brandon, for Appellee Elizabeth Perez-Diaz, D.M.D. No appearance for Appellee JJP Healthcare International, Inc. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

### 2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.
a foreign corporation,

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY,
a corporation, and

DOCKET NO. 9300

PITT-DES MOINES, INC.,
a corporation.

Seer SL

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS
FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT

IL

Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(g), on December 16, 2002, provisional in camera treatment
was granted for specific portions of the trial testimony of Gerald Glenn, CEO of Respondent
Chicago Bridge & Iron (“CB&I”). Subsequent to that testimony, Respondents, pursuant to
Commission Rule 3.45(b), on December 18, 2002 and December 20, 2002 filed motions seeking
in camera treatment for the specific portions of the trial testimony of Gerald Glenn which had
been granted provisional im camera treatment. Complaint Counsel does not oppose Respondents’
request. The Order on Non-Parties’ Motions for Jn Camera Treatment of Documents Listed on
Parties’ Exhibit Lists, entered on November 1, 2002, set forth the standards by which the motions
for in camera treatment are evaluated.

I.

Respondents seek in camera treatment for the trial testimony of Gerald Glenn regarding
his views on the competitive strengths of CB&I’s competitors and regarding CB&I’s pricing
strategy. These pages have been identified by Respondents as Trial Transcript 4221-4225 and all
testimony on cross and redirect examination that references this testimony or elicits similar
testimony. Respondents request an order granting in camera treatment of this trial testimony for
a period of three years.



The declaration of Gerald Glenn attached to Respondents’ motion demonstrates that these
portions of his trial testimony consist of competitively sensitive and confidential information, the
disclosure of which would cause the loss of business advantage and serious and irreparable injury
to Respondents. Respondents have demonstrated that public disclosure of this information would
result in clearly defined, serious injury.

Accordingly, Respondents’ motions for in camera treatment are GRANTED. Jn camera
treatment, for a period of three years, to expire December 1, 2005, is hereby GRANTED for the
portions of Glenn’s December 17, 2002 and December 18, 2002 trial testimony that were
previously granted provisional in camera treatment pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(g) and
previously designated as i camera transcript material.

ORDERED: Dm Chanel

D. Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge

Date: January 8, 2003
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 Quarterly Report of 1st Source Corporation (1st Source) on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry E. Lentych,
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
to my knowledge:






(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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 1st Source.











By:








/s/LARRY E.
LENTYCH


Larry E.
Lentych


Chief
Financial Officer


April 24,
2009
259 La. 797

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Billy ELAM v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51799.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 13, 1971.

In re: Billy Elam applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.

SUMMERS, J.,

agrees that the writ should be denied because the rules of this court have not been complied with and petitioner has made no effort to comply and indicates that he will not.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 4, 2020

b127

Order 

Clerk

February 4, 2020

159189(111)(114)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159189

COA: 339255

Wayne CC: 17-002406-FH

WILLIAM FREDERICK WHATELEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 30, 

2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G). The motion for 

miscellaneous relief is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3554]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-232-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

February 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 6, 1997, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National), 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203, 
filed a request with the Commission in Docket No. CP97-232-000, 
pursuant to Sections 157.205, and 157.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to 
construct and operate a sales tap to render service for an existing 
firm transportation customer authorized in blanket certificate issued 
in Docket No. CP83-4-000, all as more fully set forth in the request on 
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    National proposes to construct and operate a new sales tap to 
provide service to National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation. The 
sales tap, designated as Station No.-2886, would be located in McKean 
County, Pennsylvania, on National's Line S-21 and would provide a 
proposed quantity of up to 100 Mcf per day. The estimated cost of the 
proposed sales tap is $20,000, for which National would be reimbursed.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the allowed time, the proposed activity 
shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time 
allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant 
request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant 
to Section 7 of the NGA.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3554 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## Docket Number: FAA-2012-0672
ORIGINAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINSTRATIV LAW JUGES 

il the Matter of 

POL YPORE INERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

TO REVISE THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

I. 

On April 7, 2009, the paries submitted a joint motion to modify the Scheduling Order to 

obtain an extension of time for the filing of in camera motions for designated non-pary witness 

deposition transcripts. The paries also jointly request a modification of the pretrial brief 

requirement. 

II. 

A. 

The Scheduling Order deadline for filing motions for in camera treatment is April 9, 

2009. The paries seek to defer the deadline for filing in camera motions for designated nonpary witness deposition transcripts until it is determined whether the designated transcripts wil 

be offered and admitted into evidence. The paries represent that non-paries have complained to 

the paries that the burden of going though the deposition testimony to determine whether they 

need to seek in camera treatment for each designated portion of their transcripts is onerous and 

may not be necessar if the deposition transcripts are not offered into evidence. The paries state 

that they have agreed to provide 10 days advance notice to a non-pary prior to offering such 

non-pary's designated deposition testimony into evidence. 

The paries have provided a reasonable basis for allowing non-paries to defer filing 

motions for in camera treatment for designated non-pary witness transcripts until after the 

paries have determined whether to call such individuals to testify at trial or to offer such 

transcripts into evidence. The paries shall provide 10 days advance notice to non-parties prior 

to seeking to introduce such non-pary's designated deposition testimony into evidence. 
B. 

The paries also request a modification to the pretrial brief requirements. il lieu of filing 

proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law, the paries wish to file pretrial briefs, with a 

maximum 40 page limit, that address all contested issues, with factual issues supported by 

document and/or deposition citations. The paries state that they are reluctant to develop detailed 

findings of fact that may not accurately reflect the actual evidence that ultimately wil be 

introduced at triaL. 

The parties have demonstrated a reasonable basis for revising the provision in the 

Scheduling Order requiring the paries to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Accordingly, the paries may, instead, file pretrial briefs, limited to 40 pages, that address all 

contested issues and provide legal authority for all propositions, with factual issues supported by 

document and/or deposition citations. 

III. 

Upon consideration of the arguments raised in the Joint Motion, it is GRANTED. 

ORDERED: ,1!t a~d

D. Michael C app 

Administrative Law Judge 

Dated: April 8, 2009 

2
#### Thomas CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-222.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 21, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 10271.

#### Buchwalter, Admr., v. Woodard et al.

Decided June 2, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Robertson.& Buchwalter,*for.plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Galvin & Galvin; Mr. Otway J. Cos grave; Messrs. Kinkead, Rogers & Ellis; Mr. W. A. Flicks*and *Mr. W. W. Brown,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew and Davis, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20211 Conference Calendar

LEONARD THOMAS EVANS, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE CITY OF BAYTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., Defendants, SARGENT BUCKLEY; RON MOSER, Investigator; R. MERLIN, Investigator; D. LOPEZ, Investigator, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CV-1699

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Leonard Thomas Evans, Sr., Texas prisoner No. 683153, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Evans has abandoned his claims against the City of Baytown, City of Baytown Police Chief Shaffer, and Harris County Investigator D. Lopez. Brinkmann v. Dallas County DeputyNo. 97-20211 -2- Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The uncontroverted summary judgment evidence shows that there was probable cause to believe that Evans was the suspect who sold cocaine to Investigator Lopez; therefore, the remaining defendants were entitled to summary judgment as to Evans’s claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Sanders v. English , 950 F.2d 1152, 1159-63 (5th Cir. 1992). The court need not address whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Wallace v. Texas Tech University , 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.33-58637, 333-88773, 333-61294, 333-118493, 333-149965 and 333-73348 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-134724 on Form S-3 of our reports dated November 25, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of BJ Services Companyand subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of BJ Services Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BJ Services Company for the year ended September 30, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Houston, Texas 

November 25, 2008
#### Robert ESTNER, Appellant, v. Ann D. ESTNER, Appellee.

No. 69-196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward Co-unty; James F. Minnet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
92/23/201 2 15:1 1 425227100 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 a 2 3 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 34 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 S 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 E 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 ANM 7 PAG E 02/0 3

JEFFRE Y M , HARPE R FA A OFHC E O FREGIONA LCOUNSE L 160 1 LlN D AVENU E SOUTHWES

T RENTON , WASHINGTO N9805 7 •m-EPHONE : (425)227-216 1 FACSIMZLE: (425 ) 227-100 7 "JhPARTMtNTO F ifiANSPORTAilO N 

## o;:K,r i OPEI^ATICN S



### UNITED STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMENT O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC EO FECEARING

S WASHINGTON , D. C

FA A Cas e No

. 2011NM07002 1 DM S No

. FAA-2011-048 4
I n th e Matter

of : Cornerston e Aviation , Inc

. FA A Cas e No

. 2011NM07002 2 DMSNo.FAA-2011-048 1 FA A Cas e No

. 2011NM07004 2 DM S No

. FAA-2011-048 9 Judg e RichardC

. Goodwi n

COiySLAmANT' S SECON D DISCOVER Y RESPONS E To : Responden t In accordanc e with1 4 Code o f Federal Regulation s (C.RR. ) Sectio n 13.22 0 an dth e Federa l Rule s o f Civi l Procedure (FRCP) , enclose di s the Adrainistiaior' s respons e t o your discover y reques t o f Januar y 25 , 2012

. 1 believ e thi s i s th e informatio n yo u requested , i f i t i s not , pleas e contact

m e to discus s what

you ar e seekin g t o hav e produced

. DATED this^Sr dda

y o f Febmaiy , 2012

.

Jef ^ M

. Harper FA A Attorne y

CompJaicant' s Secon dDiscovery Rcspons s Comcnrton c Aviation , Inc

. -DM S Nos

. FAA-20n-O481 , F.\A-2011-048 4 FAA-2011-045 9 Page t o f 2 JEFFRE Y M

. HARPER , FA A ATTORSE Y TEL : (425 ) 227-2161 ; FAX : (425 ) 227-100 705/23/261 2 15:1 1 425227100 7 ANM 7

4 5 6 7 8 a

1 0

1 5 11 , I S 1 5 1 7 1 5 1 5 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 5 2 7 2 9 2 3 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 -1 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 l e 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 52

- 5 3 PAG E 03/0 3



### CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

1 hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Complainant' s Secon dDiscovery Respons e ha s bee n serve d vi afacsimil e an dOvernight Courie r thi s date , t o th e following : Honorabl e RichardC

. Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E

. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , R mE12-32 0 Washington , D.C

. 2059 0 FAX : 202.366.753 6 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 800 Independenc e Avenu e S W Washington , D.C

. 2059 1 FAX : 202.493.502 0
I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Complainant' s SecondDiscovery Respons e ha s bee n serve d vi aOvernigh t

Courier this date , t o th e following : Susa n Horstman Chie f Executiv e Office

r Cornerston e Aviation , Inc

. 337North2370West#13 0 Salt Lak e City , UT 8411 6 Date dthi£.23rd , da

y o f February , 2012

.

, /

MOIFAI RCHI N Office o f Regional Counse l (ANM-7 ) Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAve

. S W Renton , W

A 9S05 7 425.227.216 0

Complainanf s Secon dDiscover ' Respcns s JJEFTREVM

. RAitPEK , FAA ATTDiy^"Ei

' Cornerston e Aviation , Inc

. - DMSNos

. FAA-2011-0431 , FAA-2011-048 4 TEL : (425 ) 227-2161 ; FAX : (425 ) 227-100 7 F.\A-2011-048 9 Pag e 2 o f 2
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No.'s 333-30164, 333-87511, 333-72527, 333-60993, 333-45731, 333-39181, 333-09727, 333-41088 and 333-68102) of ActionPoint, Inc. of our report dated February 4, 2002, except for Note 12, which is as of March 4, 2002, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California

April 29, 2002
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ulyses SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 61679.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Ulyses Smith applying for writ of Mandamus. Parish of Jefferson.

Granted. Relator is to be supplied with the transcription of his prior conviction. (Per prayer).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-28-1996                     
<CASH>                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                33,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                    830
<INVENTORY>                                  18,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             55,039   
<PP&E>                                       71,268 
<DEPRECIATION>                               18,235                                      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              120,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        41,307     
<BONDS>                                           0 
<COMMON>                                        784
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   42,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                120,043
<SALES>                                      54,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             54,417
<CGS>                                        38,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                38,651       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             10,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              789  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               4,530
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1,393    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           3,137
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  3,137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .40
        

</TABLE>