alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-186-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 210 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 210

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 29, 1993.
    Resolved, That all points of order against consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2492) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and 
other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, 
for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. 
During consideration of the bill, all points of order against provisions in the 
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6279

WAKEEL ABDUL

- SABUR , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7:19

- cv - 00035

- GEC

- PMS )

Submitted : April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Wakeel Abdul

- Sabur , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wakeel Abdul

- Sabur seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismiss ing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( A) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by de monstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdul

- Sabur has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### LETO v. CALIFORNIA PACKING CO.

No. 38804.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Granville TENNENT v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54105.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: Granville Tennent applying for Writ of Certiorari and Habeas Corpus.

Writ denied. One issue raised was disposed of on appeal and the evidentiary complaint is insufficient to support the writ application.
SERVED: March 4, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION~' Pr-r'EfVED . " - . · 

In The Matter Of: 

CLIFFORD PRESS 

Respondent 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS MAR 1 1 2tl13 

WASHINGTON, DC HEA 

RING DOCKET 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2011-1006 

Case No. 2011EA150045 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On February 21, 2013, an Order Setting Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference was filed. 

Among other things, this Order set a Second Pre-Hearing Conference for March 6, 2013. 

On March 1, 2013, the Respondent, through counsel, filed Mr. Press' Withdrawal of 

Request for Hearing requesting that the proceedings be terminated. 

After reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, and being 

fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference set for March 6, 2013 is cancelled. 

2. The 3-day hearing currently set to begin on April23, 2013 in Islip, New York is 

cancelled. 

3. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawn his request for hearing, 

and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Jud~e JcE. Sulli 

U.S.''AQn:inis tive Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Ms. Judith L. Vaughan, Esq. 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AEA-7 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3255 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Ms. Kathleen A. Yodice, Esq. 

Respondent's Counsel 

Yodice Associates 

411 Aviation Way, Suite 245 

Frederick MD 21701 

TEL: 301-695-2300 

FAX: 301-695-2151 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 

20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

Page 2 of2
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0722 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-188-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

2.0 $ 170.00 $0 $ 170.00 83 $14,110.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $14,110

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

3FF8CIAL B

ITATE ©F Tl

PRIVATE USI

RE: WR-53,367-03

aesPQsfc,

02 1M

0004279596 JAN 1 4 2

MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 78 

PRESIDING JUDGE 266TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

P. O. BOX V°7

STEPHENVIj . h...

ERATH

224 KME-NaEB/ZJai^BlSS

"*? •TS.0(.:i-miS' •!• 2 '^'01 i "5 '.C 2Z1<&'"k /'"L:8/ "li5

.RE^TiNW -TO* S£ ND£ff - " -". ••.; •'' ' CO DISTRICT 3UDGE

SOX CLOSED 11 k> a » > !-- •»- Vs r- *N r*. %.» *£}»"*

PC 55MOSR

BC: 7S711230S8S * 2682-©7968-17 -27

r-inii'iii-n ! \ ' iHirt ru\ t t

....l.U.,,.

•u ••vi Tin r'rii
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          37,347
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,246,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,154
<INVENTORY>                                  3,571,413
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,966,926
<PP&E>                                       4,377,605
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,886,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,639,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          721,293
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,286
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,437,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,639,207
<SALES>                                      2,529,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               865,192
<CGS>                                        1,664,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  522,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                332,696
<INCOME-TAX>                                   136,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   196,696
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-00848, No. 333-76851, No. 333-79337, No. 333-82257, No. 333-38860, No. 333-66068, No. 333-105620 and No. 333-120708) of PC Mall, Inc. (formerly IdeaMall, Inc. and
Creative Computers, Inc.) of our report dated March 24, 2006 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|                                      
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP        
|Los Angeles, California March 30, 2006
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88805)pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-79559) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. Management Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group,Inc. Stock Option Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group, Inc.Director Stock Plan, Borders Group, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and Borders Group, Inc. Savings Plan forEmployees Working in Puerto Rico, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-114403) pertainingto the Borders Group, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-120367) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc.Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan and the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-134847) pertaining to theBorders Group, Inc. 401(k) Plan of our reports dated March 30,2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Borders Group, Inc. and Borders Group, Inc.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingof Borders Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 3,2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPDetroit, Michigan
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PE DRO A NTON I O PER EZ - VELASQUEZ; AN A BER THA PER EZ , P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74495 A ge nc yN os . A 076- 366- 359

A 076- 366- 360 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P edro A nt on i o P er ez -V el as qu ez and A na B ertha P er ez , hu sband and w i fe and na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of M e xi c o, pe t i t i on pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n ba s e d on in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED SEP 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74495 2 r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n. Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ th ir dm o tio n to re op en as un t i m el y and nu m ber- barr ed w here the m ot i on w as fi l ed m ore than three years after th e fi n al ad m i n i strat i v e o rd er w as en t eredi n th ei r case , se e 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , and pe t i t i one r s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe yw e r e e l i gi bl e f or e qu itab le to llin g o f

th e f ilin g d e a d lin e , s e eI

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 897 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). T h e B IA d i dn o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g p et i t i o n ers’ u n t i m el y req u est to w ith d r aw f

r o m th e irg r an t o f

v o lu n taryd e p artu r e . See D ada v. Mukasey , 128 S . C t . 23 07 , 23 19 (200 8). PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
EXHIBIT
10.41




First
Amendment
 To
 Change
of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
 
 This
First Amendment (the
“First Amendment”) to Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreementis made this 27h day
of September, 2008, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on the one hand, and Charles AuBuchon, Vice
President of Sales, on the other hand (the “Executive”).
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into a Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
dated as of October 31, 2005 (the “Severance Agreement”); and
 
 WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and
 
 WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Severance Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Severance Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
 
 Section“2.Term of
Agreement”strike the
language “continue until the third anniversary of the Effective Date” and
replace it with “continue until June 30, 2009”.
 
 
 
 
 _________________________________                                            _________________________________
 
 ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                           Charles
AuBuchon
# March 2022
#### Hogan et ae. vs. The State.

Scire facias on recognizance defective as in *Darby vs. State;*21 *ArJc.*523 *(State vs. Sartain, ante.)*

*637
      *Error to Prairie Circuit Court.*

Jordan for plaintiff.

Faust for the State.

Mr. Justice Compton

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case, the *scire facias*does not show that the recognizance was entered into before the court in which the prosecution was had, or before any of the officers authorized by law to take it. The judgment by default cannot, therefore, be sustained, according to the principle decided in *Darby vs. The*State, 21 *Ark.*523.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
#### HARBOUR INLET ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellant, v. Armand D. PELLETIER et al., Appellees.

No. 73-467.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 14, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John H. Moore, III, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certification

I, Frank A. Lodzinski, Chief Executive Officer of GeoResources, Inc. (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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Frank A. LodzinskiFrank A. LodzinskiChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)November 5, 2010


The
foregoing certifications are not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and are not to be incorporated by reference into
any filing of GeoResources, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Robert I. Postel et al., Appellants, v Jaffe & Segal et al., Respondents.

[654 NYS2d 25]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 10,1996, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the default resulting in the dismissal of this action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Vacatur of plaintiffs’ default was properly denied because, having failed to set forth the names of the experts who would have testified and the substance of their testimony, plaintiffs’ claim of damages remains speculative *(compare, Drucker v Mige Assocs. II,*225 AD2d 427, 428-429, *lv denied*88 NY2d 807, *with Campbell v Rogers & Wells,*218 AD2d 576, 580). Further, absent a showing of actual damages, there can be no cause of action for legal malpractice *(see, Zarin v Reid & Priest,*184 AD2d 385, 387), or any other tort. Plaintiffs’ pattern of evading discovery orders is evident from the record, and is further justification for the sanction of dismissal *(see, Berman v Szpilzinger,*180 AD2d 612). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     9

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         199,747
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         102,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               648,107
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    435,403
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       8,271,515
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         8,409,440
<LOANS>                                     27,940,415
<ALLOWANCE>                                    242,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,383,006
<DEPOSITS>                                  25,477,429
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,363,950
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            831,199
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,724,562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,717
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,980,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              39,383,006
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,745,201
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              161,063
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               333,965
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,240,229
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             963,878
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,519,176
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          721,053
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    8,777
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                258,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                553,984
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     335,052
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 12,511
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   322,541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.56
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.40
<LOANS-NON>                                    264,198
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                24,118
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 70,720
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               233,280
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                       358
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              242,415
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           242,415
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>