alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6516-6517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02447]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE & TIME:  Thursday, February 12, 2015 At 10:00 a.m.

PLACE:  999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)

STATUS:  This Meeting Will Be Open To The Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 
Correction and Approval of Minutes for January 15, 2015
Draft Advisory Opinion 2014-20: Make Your Laws PAC, Inc.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2014-21: Cambia Health Solutions, Inc.
Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Republican Party of 
Orange County (Federal) (RPOC) (A11-23)
Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Democratic Party of 
Wisconsin (DPW) (A12-04)
Proposed Final Audit Report on the Joe Walsh for Congress Committee, 
Inc. (A13-01)
Management and Administrative Matters

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign

[[Page 6517]]

language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202)694-1040, at 
least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:  Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-02447 Filed 2-3-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
9 September 1965

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Astronaut Sightings of Objects in Space

The attached memorandum was prepared for the GT •5 flight

but not introduced, since we had our hands full with photo control.

It is still valid and should be considered for subsequent flights.

Draft Memo PAIIIRTHMAN

Colonel. USAF

t.• !MI

‘..**1"irt • • r,setrrii
:• •••••• n.“.

C I 1 r i System

DRAFT/Lt

August 1965

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. McMILLAN

SUBJECT: GEMINI - Astronauts Visual Sightings

Related to your August 9 lett 45-65) to Dr. Seamans,

concerning classification of GEMINI acquired photography. is the

reporting of visual sightings by the astronauts. Assuming that you

may wish to discuss this matter with Dr. Seamans (avoiding the

necessity of another repetitive memo), following are some pertinent

points:

We cannot constrain the astronauts from talking about things

or events they see.

They should report all sightings -- but should constrain

potentially embarrassing real-time details (i. e. , exact description

of unusually configured space vehicles, markings denoting national

origin, etc. ) -- this latter constraint to be in force pending confirmation

by SPADATS of position of space debris described and political ramifications (i. e. , possible intentional "rendezvous" for inspection of USSR

satellites, etc. ).

3. It is possible (but improbable in line with next paragraph)

that astronauts could sight and verbally report on classified (NRP)

U. S. satellites.

:
Since NRP activities go into Polar orbit -- and since GEMINI

is on a "MERCURY-type", or near Equatorial orbit, the rate, times,

and directions of closure are not compatible for detailed sightings.

Because of possibility (albeit remote) of sightings .0 NRP

satellite'or associated debris -- NASA should coordinate details of such

visual sightings with both SPADATS (confirmation of identity) and NRO

(appropriateness) prior to public release of details of such sightings.

(General Stewart)

o
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00340

- CR

Mark Meru v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 11

- CR

- 3765

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 26, 2016
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-43613 and Registration Statement No. 333-93211 of C3, Inc. on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-100883 of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 11, 2008, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No.109, in 2007 and Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, Share-Based Payment, in 2006) and the effectiveness of Charles & Colvard, Ltd.s internal
control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2007.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|Raleigh, North Carolina  
|                         
|March 11, 2008
# C_2004174EN.01002001.xml

| 6.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/20

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC No 40/04

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

‘Preparatory actions for cooperation on cultural matters’

Implementation of budget heading 15 04 02 03 for 2004

(2004/C 174/20)

1.   OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

This call for applications concerns European cultural cooperation projects and the analysis of information on cultural cooperation. The projects selected must involve some form of experimentation and must relate to at least two of the following objectives:

| — | to increase the mobility of operators in the cultural sector, |
| --- | --- |

—

to increase the mobility of operators in the cultural sector,

| — | to increase the circulation of cultural products and works, |
| --- | --- |

—

to increase the circulation of cultural products and works,

| — | to develop intercultural dialogue. |
| --- | --- |

—

to develop intercultural dialogue.

2.   ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

This call for applications by cultural operators established in the Member States of the European Union or other countries of the European Economic Area (1).

1

3.   BUDGET AND PROJECT DURATION

The total budget available for this call for proposals in 2004 is EUR 2 140 000. This means that funding can be provided for approximately five cooperation projects. The maximum rate of Community funding is 70 % of the eligible budget of each project.

This call for proposals concerns activities beginning before 31 December 2004 and ending before 31 December 2006. The projects supported may run for a maximum of two years.

4.   DEADLINE

Applications must be sent to the Commission no later than 15 September 2004.

5.   FURTHER INFORMATION

The specifications and the application forms are available on the Commission's internet site:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/other_actions/exp_act/exp_act_en.html

Applications for funding must respect the conditions set out in the specifications and must be submitted on the forms provided with the specifications.

---

(1)  Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, subject to adoption of the Joint Committee Decision.

1

---
# C_2005069EN.01001302.xml

| 19.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 18 January 2005

in Case T-93/02: Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Measures taken by the French Republic for Crédit Mutuel - Livret bleu - Decision 2003/216/EC - Duty to state reasons - Action for annulment)

(2005/C 69/25)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-93/02: Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel, established in Paris (France), represented by A. Carnelutti and J.-P. Gunther, lawyers, supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million, with an address for service in Luxembourg), against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/216/EC of 15 January 2002 on State aid granted by France to Crédit Mutuel (OJ 2003 L 88, p. 39), in the form of excess compensation for collection and management costs of regulated savings under the ‘Livret bleu’ system — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges, J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on 18 January 2005, in which it:

Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel

French Republic

Commission of the European Communities

Livret bleu

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2003/216 EC of 15 January 2002 on State aid granted by the French Republic to Crédit Mutuel; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2003/216 EC of 15 January 2002 on State aid granted by the French Republic to Crédit Mutuel;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant's costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant's costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

EDWARD SCOTT,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 728 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Johnson, Respondent, vs. Irwin Albert, doing business as Rockmont Dairy, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Hanitch, Hartley, Johnson & Frit-schler*of Superior.

For the respondent: *Curran & Sher*of Superior.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 Costs, on February 7, 1933.
October 2 1%2

•

11111111MOIN get SCIWILUt bosty Direst", alememreb),

MUM CIA Proarearst gar Projecting.

•

Ragersom is loads to 7 ussorasim of 4 September es tbs above oddest ad cur diseassias yesterday rids the Director.

' Is vim of its expressed pregermao fir firing all covert

.as for Oa MO dam by this Appecy, I believe we aboold eapadlts tbs treader of the castrastiag rispolitibility for dome boo programs. It la cy adarstasding tbst be desired is obtains aces additimal lageraties before asking the final detessisaties bet dist is tic abeam* of stress factors to the esstney, be desired to premed is the rum see dimmed. asseciag thee impiry refugeeism the desirability of prom seeding to pot all ef the at eustraatiog is see plata, I believe that the arsalmics fee asemplialsiog Ms are *IMP

4111.1.1011* &Masi and dot us ems sties* Os tmeositlas es • as coedited bale.

-01)- mar

^etisssi Off ice Pasemaissame

Jac* Cbaryk

es: Dizester, CIA
#### McGovern and others, Appellants, vs. Oelhafen and others, Defendants: Oelhafen and others, Garnishee Defendants and Respondents. (Case No. 1.) McGovern and others, Appellants, vs. Oelhafen and others, Defendants: Oelhafen and others, Garnishee Defendants and Respondents. (Case No. 2.)

For the appellants: *H. K. Curtis*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents John W. Oelhafen and Frank Theiler: *R. T. Reinholdt*of Tomahawk.

For the respondent Edward Riemer: *Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher, McNamara & Michael*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1894 

To facilitate construction of a bridge on certain property in Christian County, 

Missouri, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2017 

Mr. LONG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To facilitate construction of a bridge on certain property 

in Christian County, Missouri, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Riverside Bridge Project is 

5 authorized to be carried out notwithstanding— 

6 (1) any agreement entered into under, or re7 striction pursuant to, section 404(b)(2) of the Rob8 ert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As9 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(b)(2)); or 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1894 IH

1 (2) any other Federal restriction that requires 

2 the covered property to be maintained for open 

3 space, recreation, or wetland management. 

4 (b) CONDITIONS.—As a condition of the authoriza5 tion under subsection (a), Christian County, Missouri— 

6 (1) shall carry out the Riverside Bridge Project 

7 in a manner that ensures that no flood damage at8 tributable to the Project occurs; and 

9 (2) shall be liable for any such flood damage 

10 that does occur. 

11 (c) DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROHIBITED.—No Fed12 eral financial assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Staf13 ford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 

14 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) may be provided with respect to the 

15 covered property or any improvements thereon. 

16 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act, the following defini17 tions apply: 

18 (1) COVERED PROPERTY.—The term ‘‘covered 

19 property’’ means the property— 

20 (A) in Christian County, Missouri; 

21 (B) conveyed to such County by the River22 side Inn, Inc.; and 

23 (C) that is approximately 1.5 acres and 

24 482 lineal feet adjacent to the westerly line of 

25 Riverside Road to the center of Finley Creek. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1894 IH

1 (2) RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT.—The term 

2 ‘‘Riverside Bridge Project’’ means the project to 

3 construct and operate a bridge on and over the cov4 ered property. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7322

LANCE WHITAKER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ANGELA P. DUNBAR,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02009-D)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 30, 2015

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lance Whitaker, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm the district court’s 

order. We also deny Whitaker’s motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) proceeding. 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.

AFFIRMED
Rule 1144 - Vanishing Oils and Rust Inhibitors
June 12, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ADEDJI ALALINCOLN ADEKEYE, Appellant

NO. 14-12-01097-CR V.

NO. 14-12-01098-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//

3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUF

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )

)LOH 1DPH D

	


	




(25*( $1( (9(5/<

21(6

	




1,7(' 	7$7(6 2) 0(5,&$






	7$7( 2) (11(66((

	



2/. 2817< (11(66((





&''&()*

,,()-*
&'.	

()*3'..0'/)'1(

 !%%#$5*-/

01'..&.'.6&

()63
*'(')12'

&.	
')12
8 

  !"#$%







3)73')	'9:*3)'&;
<



=	 	<
	 0
< /*4' &&// (),,&  >''-  )?& >

3  > =		
	4&.&&//(),,/	*3 &) 	)*  ))'&+& 

0 		03
	

<

	0
<
	
>/*'&+&0()
&)4&)



	



;3
*'(')12'2.+*'/2)

'&''7'//2.&,'&'&'&*'/1/&27"8%%8>*.*&&.&//.1'-/(2&..'&.2,)1//4''&/&.2&.) 8#"$. % @"*')8%%8A@&:&1A

8$	#8@1:)#8%%8A&&//&.**) / .(&.&/ ?) & '--2& ()- & &.&/B/.-+/1'-/2&.)'

(*-)'1&/?'*0'/:'''/1&	,-:)8%?+)&.*	(&&//B/-'&(),&)*)'&+,)'//2:-'./2,,-&:)'(/&&//)+2.*&&.&/B/1'-/ ) & :/. & .2 ,)1// 4''&/ &. *&&//*)()&C7/4&*-&.-&'--2&'7()-/2'&*/1'-/&)*)'&+&.()*(?'&+)/&/ ? 3 * .'/)'1 12)B/ .&' (&&//B/-'&.'/-'//&.30*'/1/()(2)*),)1.'&+/


&?1&/'.).*4'.'7(*:)+'&

(/B/'--2&'7/2':7,)'4,)'/2&.)'

(*-)'1&/?'*0'/:'''/12'.'&+2)*&.*)2+* 2) 42'& ?/ * 	2,)- 2)B/ )1&.1'/'&'& 
!"D$
	$D"
 !"#$% 


@8%%A'&?*'1** 	2,)-'4(*2)&*-&.-&:)+*4&*-&.- ,)'4 .-+ /2'/  > -&.-&:)).1'-/2&.)?'*0'/:'''/1:/.&E2&+)//12.:)+4&*.2,)1//1'-/

-&+*)'+*/,)1.:7

*2)&*-&.-&'/*))1)'-'&.(&.&/'F&*/:&'&),).,)4'.*:,)/&/+/(*)'()2/) * (')&// ( * ,)I88
	 %" &''+'&*4&&+2/.2,)*12))-&.-&'&+(272&// *') J12/'& (2)*)/ '&)//8#"$
!#""8.8% 8$@"
	 @ DA2)*)*/?-7&:/&1'&.()(''&+:&11)...2,)1//"D%8@#8A*/+2)&/)&.('))-&:()*12)

*4'.&1:()&+)//?

*-)'1&/?'*0'/:'''/1:))')/'&+4)&-&:2'.'&+/'&*12))-/*-/4/*4.'/:.,,*,,)2&'7J)1'/(2&.-&)'+*/+2)2/
&?(2&.*+2)& -&'&+(2 &()1-)'+*/ ( * .'/:.  8#" $.&+)// -7 )E2') //  11&/'2'&)'+*'//2*(1-,'&1&.*((1(('2?'* .'/:'''/  
& * 1&J
I 

  !"#$%

&+)// 12. /F //  ?'+* * (2&.-&'-,)&1(11//*12)/2)C2/'1/7/-**,),2'&(*12))&,*7/'1:))')/()1,,?'*.'/:'''/ '*) ()+*') )'+*:,)/&'&12)):1))'.'&12)&.** )-.7'/(&'&J,&/'4&./'-,

/.&* )1).:()&+)//'& 1&/'.)'&+*

-)'1&/?'*0'/:'''/+'/'&'?/)/&:()&+)//1&12.*'&..&1+'/'&,)4&// ()-2&.27:2).&'&+1&/'2'& )'+*/'&12.'&+*)'+*(11//*12)/	/*4-7)'.?7/  2&:2).& */ )'+*/ ()- * -C) /, ()&4'&+(1'''/*)'47-'&)/,(//'+&'&+'./  //'/ '& 11//  * (1'''/  * )1)..-&/).*,2:'1&''/B('2)11--.*&./(E2'('.,)/&/?'*.'/:'''/-7)/2.')17()-2&1&/'2'&&'-2/&.'-,)-'//':/)7,/'

&/2)/**)(2/11--.&'&.'4'.2?'*.'/:''7'/+&2'&7:/.&2&)/&:1/)12 '&:''7  11--. & & '&1&4&'&1 )2&(2&..1&1)&/:21//

*'/ /2)7 ,)1'& '/  ,)4&'4 -/2)

1--&/2)  * +)4'7 ( ,)12.'&+  11//  *12)/ :7 */ ?'* .'/:'''/  
& ..''& */)E2')-&/)1)(27').*2&'E2(2)/(.'/:''7.'/1)'-'&'&*,)/'//'&,2:'1/)4'1//'-,:&&.'/1)'-'&'&+'&/*/?'*.'/:'''/1F/**1&'&2'&++17(.'/1)'-'&'&'/,?)(2'

((')-'47,)-/'&+)'&(*/?'*.'/:'''/

&/&.&)/F'&+4'&.'1*'))'+*(11//

*12)/'&&&//&+/***/:&.&'.*:&('(11//*12)/ &/ /'-')7+/*/**/:&J12..()-12)*2//&.12),)1.'&+/:7&'&:''711//*,*7/'1(1'''/&&// )/,&./**4''&/+.)&.2,)1//4''&/*.'(('12E2/'&/,)/&.:7*'/

 !"#$% 
1/1&&:1)'('.:/&( ? *.* ' 

'/&()1'&+*.2,)1//)'+*/*'/1/1-2/:()&7.*.**.'/)'112),,),)-'&.'/-'//*'/1'&

> 3 * .1'/'& 

30 () (2)*) ,)1.','&'&
U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N% ^ - OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON . DC . ^ 4 R9 ^O i Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n Complainan t vs . Helicopte r

Flit e Responden t t •••J ' '>', , . #CP09EA001 5 

# ff ^

MOTIO NFO RRECONSIDERATIO N AND NOW , come s th e Responden t Floy dHoffman , principl e fo r Helicopter;'Flite , Inc . who maver s an dfile s th e following : 1 . Pursuan t

t o th e Judgmen t

serve do nFebruar y 4 , 201 0 agains t Helicopte r Flit e Inc , Responden t

hereb y files aNotic e o f Appea l i naccordanc e wit h 1 4 CF R13.223(a) , 13.211(e) . 2 . Responden t

aver s th e followin g reasons : i . Honorabl e Judg e Isaa c D . Benkin , erre di nhi s decisio nt o asses s th e civi l penalt y base do nincomplet e facts , substanc e an dcas e merits . ii . Responden t

di dno t ente r apraecip e fo r

appearanc e o nbehal f o f himsel f fo r pr o s e representation ; t o wi t th e honorabl e judg e Page 1 of 2inadvertentl y denie dth e Responden t hi s constitutiona l righ t for lega l representation . iii . Responden t

wa s denie dhi s righ t

t o discover y an dfiling evidentiar y documentar y evidence . WHEREFORE , Th e Respondent , Helicopte r Flit e pray s thi s Honorabl e Cour t wil l reconside r

it' s violation' s fo r

th e abov e reason s an dprocee dt o a nadditiona l hearin g wher e Responden t i s allowe dlega l representatio nt o argu e th e materig J fact s i nthi s case .

Respectfull y Submitte d Floy dHoffma n 

### Datej^,^^^ *

Pag e 2 o f 2
<PAGE>   1



                 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                      MICROS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                     September 30,
                                                                  1999          1998
                                                                  ----          ----
<S>                                                             <C>           <C>
Weighted-average number of common shares                         16,290        16,115
Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options                      1,083           933
                                                                 ------        ------
Weighted-average number of common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding                                  17,373        17,048
                                                                 ======        ======
Net income                                                       $5,138        $3,508
                                                                 ======        ======
Basic net income per common share                                 $0.32         $0.22
                                                                 ======        ======
Diluted net income per common share                               $0.30         $0.21
                                                                 ======        ======
</TABLE>



                                       20