alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40021

Conference Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

VICTOR HUGO GARCIA-VALENCIA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:16-CR-1247-1 

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Hugo GarciaValencia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia-Valencia has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40021 Document: 00514122949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 17-40021

2 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40021 Document: 00514122949 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 iVoice, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jerome R Mahoney,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

                    1.   The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
                         section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.


                                      Date: May 14, 2004

                                      By /s/ Jerome R Mahoney
                                         ---------------------
                                      Jerome R Mahoney
                                      President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                      Principal Financial Officer



                                       19
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1337

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tyrese D. Hyles

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

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

Keithlan L. Carter

lllllllllllllllllllllMovant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________

Submitted: February 19, 2019

Filed: March 8, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Keithlan Carter appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se motion. We

1

conclude that we have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the district court

properly denied Carter’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We

also deny as moot Carter’s pending motion in this court.

______________________________

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-2-
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.4



                                    ADDENDUM


         This Addendum amends that certain Employment Agreement dated September
1, 1996 by and between MICHAEL BARRIST and NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation (the "Agreement"), and this Addendum shall be effective
as of January 1, 1999 (the "Effective Date").

         For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.       Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is amended by deleting the text of such
         paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

         "The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five (5) years,
         commencing on the Effective Date and terminating on December 31, 2003,
         subject to any early termination provisions set forth in the
         Agreement."

2.       Paragraph 4 (c) of the Agreement shall be amended to provide that the
         Company shall reimburse the Employee for all Company related use of the
         Employee's airplane.

3.       Paragraph 4 shall be further amended by adding the following:

         "(e) Security. The Employee shall, from time to time as is reasonably
         required by the Employee, be permitted to utilize the Company's
         security personnel.

4.       Paragraph A of Exhibit "A" of the Agreement is amended by providing for
         a Base Salary of $450,000 per annum, commencing on the Effective Date.
         The Base Salary shall, at a minimum, be adjusted annually, on the
         anniversary date of the Effective Date pursuant to the CPI then in
         effect for the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The Base Salary shall be
         payable in installments, in arrears, in accordance with the Company's
         regular payroll practices, but not less often than monthly.

5.       In the event any term or condition of this Addendum is inconsistent
         with any term or condition of the Agreement, the terms of this Addendum
         will control. Except as stated above, all the terms and conditions of
         the Agreement, including all restrictions and covenants, shall remain
         in full force and effect and are incorporated herein by reference as
         though set forth at length.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum to become
effective on the Effective Date.

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.


By:_________________________________         ___________________________________
                                             Michael Barrist
? #

# 8

6 œ

>

œ

>

œ

> >

œ. Allegro q. = 120

f

œ œ

>

œ

>

œ. #

>

nœ œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

For ceremonial version,

jump to m. 100, 2nd beat

fi

J

œ

^

‰ ‰ Œ. œ J

œ œ Jœ

5

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#

 ̇. œ J

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ

œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ bœ

J

nœ

f

œ Jœ œ Jœ œ Jœ œ Jœ

13

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ

? #

# œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.  ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ J

œnœ J#œ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

21

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ

? #

#

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.  ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ

. œ J

œ œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ Jœ œ Jœ

29

P

œ Jœ

œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#

œ Jœ œ Jœ œ J

œ #œ

. œ. œ

.  ̇.  ̇. œ

J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

J

œ

‰ ‰

œ.

P

œ Jœ œ Jœ

37

œ Jœ œ J

œ

œ

J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#

 ̇. œ J

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ

œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ bœ

J

nœ

f

œ Jœ œ Jœ œ Jœ œ Jœ

45

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#

 ̇. œ Jœ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ J

œnœ J#œ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

53

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#

 ̇. œ Jœ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ

. œ J

œ œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ Jœ œ Jœ

61

P

œ Jœ

œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ œ Jœ

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

Words & Music by

CW4 David A. Myers

40th Army Band, VTARNG

1st Trombone

The Official March of the National Guard Bureau -Full Orchestra VersionDedicated to the Men and Women, Soldiers and Airmen of America's National Guard
? #

# œ J

œ #œ

. œ. œ

.  ̇.  ̇. œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ. J

œ

‰ ‰

>

œ.

F

œ Jœ œ Jœ

69

œ Jœ œ J

œ

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#

 ̇. œ J

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ

œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ bœ

J

nœ

f

œ Jœ œ Jœ œ Jœ œ Jœ

77

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#

 ̇. œ Jœ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ J

œnœ J#œ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

85

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#

 ̇. œ Jœ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ

. œ J

œ œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ Jœ œ Jœ

93

P

œ Jœ

œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ œ Jœ œ J

œ #œ

. œ. œ

.

? #

#

 ̇.  ̇. œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

Ceremonial version,

from m. 4 fi

J

œ

‰ ‰

>

œ.

F

‰ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

- 101

œ

J

œ œ J

œ œ. œ. œ œ

- œ

- œ

J

œ

-

? #

# œœ œ

- œ œ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ J

œ œ

J

œ œ. J

œ

‰ ‰ ‰ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

- 109

œ

J

œ œ J

œ œ. œ œ

- œ

-

? #

#

œ. Jœ

‰ ‰

œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ

J

œ œ J

œ

J

œ

‰ ‰ Œ. ‰ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

- 117

œ

J

œ œ J

œ

? #

#

œ. œ. œ œ

- œ

- œ

J

œ

- œ

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. J

œ

‰ ‰ ‰

œ

> œ

> œ. 125 >

? #

#

œ. Jœ

‰ ‰ ‰ œ

>œ

>œ. >

J

œ

‰ ‰

œ. > œ

>

œ

>

œ

> œ

>

J

œ

>

ƒ

œ

>

J

œ

> >

œ.  ̇. >

sfp

 ̇.  ̇. Jœ

^

‰ ‰ Œ.

ƒ

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

Official March of the National Guard Bureau

-1st Trombone2
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/5/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

USMAN SHEHU SULE,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 95-1494

v. D. Colorado

B. R. STORY, IMMIGRATION &

NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondents - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 95-K-2351) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.
1Sule disputes one of the recited facts -- that he entered the country in 1990. 

However, this disputed fact is irrelevant to the jurisdictional determination. 

- 2 -

Usman Shehu Sule filed this in forma pauperis pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. He seeks release from custody, a writ of mandamus, and preliminary injunction

against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2241 and 1361. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction,

finding that Sule was not in INS custody. Sule appeals, contending that the district court

erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, and in failing to address the due process and equal

protection issues he raised. We affirm. 

The facts1

 and applicable law are fully set forth in the Recommendation of the

magistrate judge which the district court adopted. R. Vol. I, Tab 10. Having conducted a

de novo review of the legal conclusions, we affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

for substantially the same reasons. 

Additionally, as the magistrate judge noted, no final order of deportation has

issued, nor has any hearing thereon been scheduled. Accordingly, any alleged violation

of constitutional due process and equal protection is both premature and speculative. See

McDonald v. New Mexico Parole Bd., 955 F.2d 631, 633-35 (10th Cir. 1991), cert.

denied, 504 U.S. 920 (1992). AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
- 3 -
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.53


 


Domestic Factoring Agreement


 


Contract No. : ABC(2012)1011-1: 13062020130000260


 


Borrower
: Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd.


Lender :
Agricultural Bank of China Shijiazhuang North City Branch


Signing
Date : March 29, 2013


Loan Amount
: RMB100,000,000


 


Length of
maturity : From March 29, 2013 to September 20, 2013


Use of Loan
: Vehicle Purchases


Loan Interest : 6.16%


Date of
Draft : April 2, 2013


Withdrawal
Amount : RMB100,000,000


 


Payment Method : Repayments of the loan and interest shall be
in accordance with the Transfer Schedule of Accounts Receivable attached hereto on maturity.


 


Repayment
Date : September 20, 2013


 


Transfer Schedule of Accounts Receivable : Ganglian Finance
Leasing Co., Ltd. will transfer a total amount of RMB 111,124,480 to ABC Shijiazhuang North City Branch on September 20, 2013.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 314 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2021 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Klamath Tribe Judg5 ment Fund Repeal Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 Public Law 89–224 (commonly known as the ‘‘Klam8 ath Tribe Judgment Fund Act’’) (79 Stat. 897) is re9 pealed. 

10 SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS. 

11 Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89–224 

12 (79 Stat. 897) (as in effect on the day before the date 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 314 IS

1 of enactment of this Act) relating to the distribution or 

2 use of funds, as soon as practicable after the date of enact3 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall dis4 burse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, 

5 on or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appro6 priated or deposited into the trust accounts for remaining 

7 legal fees and administration and per capita trust ac8 counts, as identified by the Secretary of the Interior, 

9 under that Act (as in effect on the day before the date 

10 of enactment of this Act). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL JIRON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RAYMOND VALDEZ; ERIC 

SCHWIESON; MARIA ZERBIE, and 

her clients; JUDGE GOLDBERGER; 

CONEJOS COUNTY, on behalf of Judge 

Swift; HUFFERNO COUNTY, 

Welsenberger, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 13-1460 

(D. Colorado) 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01952-LTB) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

 The district court dismissed Michael Jiron’s suit because his complaint failed to 

comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We 

affirm the district court’s judgment because Jiron has forfeited his right to have that 

judgment reviewed. Even though Jiron is pro se, his appellate brief contains no argument 

that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Garrett v. Selby Connor 

 

* After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may 

be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 3, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840–41 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal order 

where a pro se plaintiff made no argument of substance in his briefs). 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, we deny Jiron’s other motions as 

moot, and we deny Jiron’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We remind him that he 

must pay the filing and docket fees in full to the clerk of the district court. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

y0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139040(58) 

LAKETON TOWNSHIP 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139040 

 COA: 276986 

Muskegon CC: 06-044687-CE 

ADVANSE, INCORPORATED, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 28, 

2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-20-00292-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 462nd District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-04712-431

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

IN THE INTEREST OF L.P. AND R.P., CHILDREN
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother appeals the trial court’s order awarding permanent joint managing 

conservatorship of her young children, L.P. and R.P.,

1

to their paternal grandparents

and giving Mother possessory conservatorship subject to various restrictions. See Tex. 

Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.191–.193 (possessory conservatorship), § 263.405 (appeal of 

final order in suit initiated by Department of Family and Protective Services).

Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as 

counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 

S. Ct. 1396 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel’s brief and 

motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. at 

741–42, 87 S. Ct. at 1399. Neither Mother nor the Department of Family and 

Protective Services has filed a response. 

As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to 

decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case is 

frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re 

K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). Having carefully 

reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is 

1At the time of the trial, L.P. was eight years old and R.P. was four years old. 
3

frivolous. See K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that might 

arguably support Mother’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of P.M. because the 

brief does not show “good cause” other than counsel’s determination that an appeal 

would be frivolous. 520 S.W.3d at 27 (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in 

the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be 

premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2016, pets. denied) (noting that since P.M. was handed down, “most courts of appeals 

affirming parental termination orders after receiving Anders briefs have denied the 

attorney’s motion to withdraw”). The supreme court has held that in cases such as 

this, “appointed counsel’s obligations [in the supreme court] can be satisfied by filing 

a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” P.M., 520 

S.W.3d at 27–28.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Delivered: January 14, 2021
Crop Production

Executive Summary

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

July 10, 2020
Data Sources

July 10, 2020

July 2020 Ag Yield Sample Sizes
United States Winter Wheat Condition

Percent Rated Good to Excellent

July 10, 2020

Percent
United States Winter Wheat Progress

Percent Harvested

July 10, 2020

Percent
July 2020 Winter Wheat

Acreage, Yield, and Production

July 10, 2020
July 2020 Winter Wheat Yield

United States

July 10, 2020

Bushels per Acre
July 2020 Winter Wheat Yield

Bushels and Percent Change from Previous Month

July 10, 2020
July 2020 Winter Wheat Objective Yield

Percent of Samples Processed in the Lab

July 10, 2020

Percent
July 2020 Winter Wheat Objective Yield

Heads per Square Foot and Yield for 10 State Region

July 10, 2020

Heads per Square Foot Bushels per Acre
July 2020 Winter Wheat Production

United States

July 10, 2020

Billion Bushels
July 2020 Winter Wheat Production

By Class

July 10, 2020
2020 U.S. Winter Wheat Production

Industry Expectations vs NASS

July 10, 2020
July 2020 Other Spring Wheat

Acreage, Yield, and Production

July 10, 2020
July 2020 Other Spring Wheat Yield

United States

July 10, 2020

Bushels per Acre
July 2020 Other Spring Wheat Yield

Bushels and Percent Change from Previous Year

July 10, 2020
2020 U.S. Other Spring Wheat Production

Industry Expectations vs NASS

July 10, 2020
July 2020 Durum Wheat

Acreage, Yield, and Production

July 10, 2020
July 2020 Durum Wheat Yield

United States

July 10, 2020

Bushels per Acre
July 2020 Durum Wheat Yield

Bushels and Percent Change from Previous Year

July 10, 2020
2020 U.S. Durum Wheat Production

Industry Expectations vs NASS

July 10, 2020
July 10, 2020

July 2020 Field Crops

Acreage, Yield, and Production
July 10, 2020

July 2020 Noncitrus Fruit and Nuts

Production
July 2020 Citrus

Utilized Production

July 10, 2020
Upcoming Reports

July 10, 2020

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/index.php
#StatChat

July 10, 2020
All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

202-720-2127

800-727-9540

nass@usda.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5


<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-2000

<CASH>                               96
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                        3,275
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     3,371
<PP&E>                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       3,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                540,609
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                             590
<OTHER-SE>                           (544,570)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         3,371
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     0
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     428,510
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (428,510)
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (428,510)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                         (428,510)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.83)



</TABLE>