alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IMO-lf

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 03-12-00809-CR OFFENSE: 22.021

Alejandro Munoz v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Hays

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 428th District Court

DATE: 11/14/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR-11-0443

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Alejandro Munoz v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

PRO S£ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

'R&J3&

DATE: OZllV/Z0'S~ lt?U

JUDGE: /muQQU6*L.

CCA#: I4>20-If

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1375 

AN ACT 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for transparency of Medicare secondary payer reporting 

information, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1375 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Provide Accurate In3 formation Directly Act’’ or ‘‘PAID Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TRANSPARENCY OF MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER 

5 REPORTING INFORMATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1862(b)(8)(G) of the So7 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 395y(b)(8)(G)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘INFORMATION.—The Sec9 retary’’ and inserting ‘‘INFORMATION.— 

10 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; 

11 and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

13 clause: 

14 ‘‘(ii) SPECIFIED INFORMATION.—In 

15 responding to any query from an applica16 ble plan related to a determination de17 scribed in subparagraph (A)(i), the Sec18 retary, notwithstanding any other provision 

19 of law, shall provide to such applicable 

20 plan— 

21 ‘‘(I) whether a claimant subject 

22 to the query is, or during the pre23 ceding 3-year period has been, entitled 

24 to benefits under the program under 

25 this title on any basis; and 
3 

•HR 1375 EH

1 ‘‘(II) to the extent applicable, the 

2 plan name and address of any Medi3 care Advantage plan under part C 

4 and any prescription drug plan under 

5 part D in which the claimant is en6 rolled or has been enrolled during 

7 such period.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to queries from 

10 plans made on or after the date that is one year after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

12 SEC. 3. DEPOSIT OF SAVINGS INTO MEDICARE IMPROVE13 MENT FUND. 

14 Section 1898(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

15 U.S.C. 1395iii(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘$0’’ and in16 serting ‘‘$30,000,000’’. 

17 SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

18 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

19 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

20 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

21 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

22 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

23 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro-
4 

•HR 1375 EH

1 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

2 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1375 

AN ACT 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 

poses. payer reporting information, and for other purprovide for transparency of Medicare secondary
#### In the Matter of Daniel Arnold, Appellant, v Department of Health of the City of New York, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered February 20, 1990 which, *inter alia,*denied and dismissed the petition insofar as it sought an order directing respondent, New York City Department of Health, to issue new birth certificates for petitioner’s two daughters showing a change of surname and deleting therefrom the name of the children’s natural mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, ordered that the children "shall all have their names changed to be as [requested]” and directed respondent to issue new birth certificates for the children born in New York City. Even if the Maryland court’s order effected valid name changes and is given full faith and credit, it is not entitled to full faith and *410credit to the extent it requires respondent to issue new birth certificates since the Maryland court lacked jurisdiction over respondent, and is therefore without power to direct respondent to perform an act. Moreover, to amend the birth certificate of a minor child, born in New York City, whose name is changed pursuant to court order requires both parents, or the surviving parent, to make an application to respondent. *(See,*New York City Health Code § 207.01.) Where, as here, the application is being made only by the father, who does not appear to be the sole surviving parent, respondent does not have the statutory authority to grant it. Furthermore, given that petitioner’s eldest daughter had already reached majority age when the petition was filed, the IAS court was correct in recommending that she should file for the appropriate relief on her own behalf. Concur—Sullivan, J. R, Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.
* 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 7, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-61051 Summary Calendar

DANIEL GHEBREMARIAM WOLDU, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 881 271

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Daniel Ghebremariam Woldu, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum. Woldu contends that the BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because he established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution.No. 05-61051 -2- Woldu does not challenge the denial of his application for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against
Torture. Therefore, these issues are waived. See Thuri v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004). Further, the BIA’s determination that Woldu failed to establish past persecution is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997)

. However, in considering Woldu’s well-founded fear of persecution claim, the IJ relied on Woldu’s past treatment in Eritrea to support his determination that there was no basis for Woldu’s alleged fear of future persecution. Further, the IJ and BIA failed to address relevant evidence presented by Woldu to support this claim. Therefore, the BIA’s decision fails to reflect meaningful consideration of all the relevant and substantial evidence supporting Woldu’s fear of future persecution claim. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS , 73 F.3d 579, 584-85 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s removal order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This court does not, however, intimate what conclusion the BIA should reach on remand. In light of the foregoing, Woldu’s motion for a stay of removal is DENIED AS MOOT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      18,693,189
<SECURITIES>                                 6,758,700
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,109,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                   143,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,912,544
<PP&E>                                      15,633,545
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,254,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,628,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,338,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,415,316
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,077,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,628,429
<SALES>                                     75,284,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            75,284,964
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,427,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            55,743,924
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             142,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,590,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,671,854
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,918,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,918,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.95
        

</TABLE>
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Michael Wayne Henderson, Petitioner, 

v. 

State of South Carolina, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2014-001254 

Lower Court Case No. 2012-CP-23-002777 

Appeal From Greenville County 

The Honorable D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-017 

Submitted March 30, 2015 – Filed April 15, 2015 

APPEAL DISMISSED 

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, 

for Petitioner. 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior 

Assistant Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, of 

Columbia, for Respondent. 
PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from an order of the circuit 

court denying his application for post-conviction relief (PCR), but finding he was 

entitled to a belated review of any direct appeal issues pursuant to White v. State, 

263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974). 

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that 

petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we 

grant certiorari and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to 

Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). 

We dismiss this matter pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, after consideration of 

petitioner's pro se brief and careful review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted. 

DISMISSED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
#### The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ANCHORAGE, Appellant, v. Tom ZAWODNY, Appellee.

No. 4188.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Nov. 30, 1979.

David A. Lawer, John R. Beard, Anchorage, for appellant.

John B. Patterson, John R. Strachan, Anchorage, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether a process server in possession of personal property by reason of a writ of attachment is subject to an action to recover the property brought by a third party claiming an interest superi- or to the lien of the attachment levy. We hold, in accordance with most authorities, that such an action will lie.1 In so holding we are of course aware that usually the process server’s interest will be merely that of a stakeholder. Our Civil Rules contain provisions which should be used by our courts to ensure that the real contestants in interest are before it,2 and that a process server who has acted properly suffers no loss.3

The judgment is reversed.

1

. *See Sleeper v. Wilson,*266 Mich. 218, 253 N.W. 274 (1934); *Oklahoma State Bank v. Reading,*176 Okl. 253, 55 P.2d 752 (1936); *Commercial Credit Corp. v. Dusckett,*114 Vt. 450, 49 A.2d 106 (1946); *Confidential Loan & Mortgage Co. v. Hardgrove,*259 Wis. 346, 48 N.W.2d 466 (1951). *See also*annot. 85 A.L.R. 668 (1933).

2

. *See*Alaska R.Civ.P. 19 (Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication); Alaska R.Civ.P. 21 (Parties may be added by the court on its own initiative).

3

*.See, e. g.,*Alaska R.Civ.P. 88(f) and 89(g) (Court may require undertaking to indemnify the interest of process server). *See also*AS 09.40.310 which allows the process server to release the property unless the plaintiff indemnifies him against third party claims.
County 

Fresno 

Kern (SJV) 

Kings 

Madera 

Merced 

San Joaquin 

Stanislaus 

Tulare 

Table C-4 Transportation Conformity Budgets* 

(tons per winter season day) 

2014 

PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 

1.0 31 .6 0.9 

1.2 43.2 1.0 

0.2 8.8 0.2 

0.3 8.7 0.2 

0.5 17.2 0.4 

0.7 20.0 0.6 

0.5 15.1 0.5 

0.5 14.3 0.4 

2017 

NOx 

25.2 

34.4 

7.2 

7.0 

13.7 

15.9 

12.0 

10.7 

*Budgets for 2019 are not included here because 2019 is not a reasonable further 

progress milestone year for a nonattainment area classified as moderate. The 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Board approved a request for a serious 

classification on September 18, 2014. 
San Joaquin Valley Draft 24-Ho ur PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(tons per winter season day) 

• Established by conventional rounding. 

2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

--.-. ....... -........ _ .......... __ .. _ -- --.. -- ............................. ._ .. 

County Fresno I Kem I Kings 

PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 

Baseline EMFAC2011 1.03 31.74 1.19 43.28 0.23 

AB1493 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Smog Check 0.00 -0.16 0.00 -0.14 0.00 

ACC 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 

Total 1.03 31.58 1.19 43.13 0.23 

Air Basin Total 

Disaggregated County Totals I 1.0471 31.6021 1.218J 43.168J 0.234J 

Budgei 1.0 31 .6 1.2 43.2 0.2 

2017 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

--·-

. ....... 

-

.......... __ ...... ,,. ........................................ ................................ 

County Fresno I Kem I Kings 

PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 

Baseline EMFAC2011 0.94 25.30 1.04 34.44 0.20 

AB1493 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Smog Check 0.00 -0.15 0.00 -0.14 0.00 

ACC -0.01 -0.07 -0.01 -0.06 0.00 

Total 0.92 25.08 1.02 34.25 0.20 

Air Basin Total 

Disaggregated County Totals 0.934 25.156 1.036 34.350 0.200 

Budget 0.9 25.2 1.0 34.4 0.2 

I 

NOx 

8.86 

0.00 

-0.03 

0.00 

8.83 83~ 8.8 

I 

NOx 

7.17 

0.00 

-0.03 

-0.01 

7.13 

7.150 

7.2 

Madera I Merced I San Joaquin I Stanislaus I Tulare 

PM2.5 NOx I PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx I PM2.5 N

0.25 8.79 0.48 17.28 0.68 20.12 0.49 15.21 0.45 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.07 0.00 -0.12 0.00 -0.10 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.25 8.741 0.48 17.211 0.68 20.00 0.49 15.11 0.45 

0.259J 8.7441 0.488 17.224 0.691 20.018 0.499 15.123 0.463 14

0.3 8.7 0.5 17.2 0.7 20.0 0.5 15.1 0.5 

Madera I Merced I San Joaquin I Stanislaus J Tulare 

PM2.5 NOx I PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 N

0.23 7.03 0.42 13.78 0.63 16.00 0.46 12.14 0.40 1

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.11 0.00 -0.09 0.00 

0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.03 -0.01 -0.05 -0.01 -0.05 -0.01 

0.22 6.96 0.42 13.681 0.62 15.84 0.451 12.001 0.391 1

0.228 6.981 0.423 13.7221 0.626 15.886 0.4551 12.0391 0.3971 10

0.2 7.0 0.4 13.7 0.6 15.9 0.5 12.0 0.4
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S)1350

       (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report of Dynegy Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Bruce A. Williamson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at
the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: May 14, 2003
                                           /s/ Bruce A. Williamson
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Bruce A. Williamson
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 8 (Friday, January 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, Translational SEP.
    Date: January 24, 2013.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Ernest W. Lyons, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, 
NINDS/NIH/DHHS, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 496-4056, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#274b5e4849544267494e49435409494e4f09404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127e6b7d7c6177527c7b7c76613c7c7b7a3c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 7, 2013.
Carolyn A. Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-00384 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# EUR-Lex - 12012M034 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12012M034

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE V: GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY - Chapter 2: Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy - Section 1: Common provisions - Article 34 (ex Article 19 TEU) **

*
Official Journal C 326, 26/10/2012, p. 0035 - 0035 *

Article 34

(ex Article 19 TEU)

1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union's positions in such forums. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall organise this coordination.

In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the Union's positions.

2. In accordance with Article 24(3), Member States represented in international organisations or international conferences where not all the Member States participate shall keep the other Member States and the High Representative informed of any matter of common interest.

Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union's position.

--------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,009
<INVENTORY>                                     62,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,723
<PP&E>                                         210,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 347,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,175
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,949
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,858
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   347,857
<SALES>                                        407,930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,930
<CGS>                                          281,195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  371,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,755)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,255
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,885
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,370
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,370
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.63
        

</TABLE>