alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Kijai Khamisi, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),
Case Number: 1:18cv87
vs.
Judge Susan J. Diott
Joseph Deters, et al.,
Defendant(s).

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed
the pleadings and filed with this Court on June 18, 2018 a Report and Recommendation (Doc.
70). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 73)
and the defendants filed a response to the objections (Docs. 89, 90 and 91).

The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and
considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, plaintiff Kijai Khamisi’s motion for default judgment against the County
defendants (Doc. 61) is DENIED.

The Golf Manor defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 22) is GRANTED AND
DEFENDANTS Matthews and Geraci are DISMISSED from the lawsuit.

The motions to dismiss/motion to stay filed by the County defendants Deters, Anderson,


Shinaman, Pureval, Enderle, Kelly, Bachman, Hayslip, and Neil (Doc. 19) and Judge Ruehlman
(Doc. 21) are GRANTED in part. The motions are GRANTED insofar as defendants move to
dismiss plaintiff Kijai Khamisi’s claims under Fed. R. C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Kijai
Khamisi’s claims against the County defendants and Judge Ruehlman are DISMISSED under
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief. The motions are GRANTED insofar as
defendants move to stay the claims of plaintiffs Kimberly, Jelani, Ayinde and Kaia Khamisi. The
Court will abstain from exercising its jurisdiction over these plaintiffs’ claims against the County
defendants and Judge Ruehlman, and these plaintiffs’ claims against the County defendants and
Judge Ruehlman are STAYED pending the conclusion of the state court criminal proceedings.

The County defendants’ motions for leave to file a reply in support of their motion to
dismiss out of time (Doc. 57) and plaintiffs’ “Emergency Affidavit Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Show Cause Hearing” (Doc. 25); “(Emergency) Affidavit of Judicial Notice, Injunctive Relief,
Show Cause Hearing, and Objection to Defendants Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 28); “Motion to
Stay, and Emergency Injunctive Relief-Show Cause Hearing” (Docs. 37, 46); and motions to take
judicial notice (Docs. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69) are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

hikan 9. Die

Judge Susan J. Diott\f
United States District Court
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Rodney Cottman,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:17cv170

Carespring, Inc, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on October 13, 2017 (Doc. 13). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections 

to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 

F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and 

Recommendation have been filed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) of 

the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 5) is dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would not 

be taken in good faith and would be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett

United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6787
BARRY ALBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00110-TSE-LO) Submitted: February 5, 2007 Decided: June 13, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry Albert, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Barry Albert seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Albert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 11, 2014

Nos. 04-14-00232-CR

 04-14-00233-CR &

 04-14-00234-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Ricardo GARZA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 413042, 413041, & 413040

The Honorable Michael La Hood, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED 

and the appeals are DISMISSED. 

We ORDER the clerk of this court to immediately issue the mandates. See TEX. R. APP. P.

18.1(c).

It is so ORDERED on June 11, 2014.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of June, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
EXHIBIT 6

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 1 of 34 PAGEID #: 3032
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 2 of 34 PAGEID #: 3033
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 3 of 34 PAGEID #: 3034
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 4 of 34 PAGEID #: 3035
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 5 of 34 PAGEID #: 3036
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 6 of 34 PAGEID #: 3037
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 7 of 34 PAGEID #: 3038
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 8 of 34 PAGEID #: 3039
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 9 of 34 PAGEID #: 3040
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 10 of 34 PAGEID #: 3041
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 11 of 34 PAGEID #: 3042
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 12 of 34 PAGEID #: 3043
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 13 of 34 PAGEID #: 3044
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 14 of 34 PAGEID #: 3045
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 15 of 34 PAGEID #: 3046
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 16 of 34 PAGEID #: 3047
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 17 of 34 PAGEID #: 3048
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 18 of 34 PAGEID #: 3049
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 19 of 34 PAGEID #: 3050
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 20 of 34 PAGEID #: 3051
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 21 of 34 PAGEID #: 3052
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 22 of 34 PAGEID #: 3053
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 23 of 34 PAGEID #: 3054
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 24 of 34 PAGEID #: 3055
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 25 of 34 PAGEID #: 3056
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 26 of 34 PAGEID #: 3057
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 27 of 34 PAGEID #: 3058
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 28 of 34 PAGEID #: 3059
EXHIBIT B

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 29 of 34 PAGEID #: 3060
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 30 of 34 PAGEID #: 3061 Case 4:18-cv-02671-YGR Document 54-1 Filed 12/04/18 Page 5 of 6
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 31 of 34 PAGEID #: 3062 Case 4:18-cv-02671-YGR Document 54-1 Filed 12/04/18 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT C

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 32 of 34 PAGEID #: 3063
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 33 of 34 PAGEID #: 3064 Case: 1:17-cv-00754-TSB Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/08/17 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 95
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 117-7 Filed: 07/30/21 Page: 34 of 34 PAGEID #: 3065 Case: 1:17-cv-00754-TSB Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/08/17 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 96
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Quintek  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2003,  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),Andrew
Haag,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certifies  to the best of his
knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the
  Company.


/s/ ANDREW HAAG
--------------------------------
    Andrew Haag
    Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2003

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec.1350  and is  not  being  filed  as  part  of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
**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 U.S. Energy Initiatives Corporation
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Philip Rappa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      U.S. Energy Initiatives Corporation and will be retained by U.S. Energy
      Initiatives Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.




November
                  19, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Philip
              RappaPhilip
                RappaChief
                Executive Officer
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 Giant Jr.  Investments,  Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  February 28, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Javan Khazali,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial  Officer  (Principal
Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.


                  /s/ Javan Khazali
                  ------------------------------
                  Javan Khazali
                  Chief Executive Officer
                  and Chief Financial Officer
                  (Principal Accounting Officer)
                  April 15, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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

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

October 28, 2013

p1021 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2013

147346

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147346

COA: 315264

Barry CC: 03

- 100230

- FH

DEANDREA SHAWN FREEMAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2013 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.39

    


    Maximum
Amount Guarantee Contract between Mr. Or Tin Man and Quanzhou Branch of Bank of
Communication (No.: 3550052009B100000706)

    


    Note:
This contract is accessory to the General Credit Contract between Guanke and
Quanzhou Branch of Bank of Communication (No.:
3550052009C000001300).

    


    
      
        	
                Date:

              	 	
                April
      9, 2009

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Guarantor:

              	 	
                Mr.
      Or Tin Man

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Creditor:

              	 	
                Quanzhou
      Branch of Bank of Communication, located at 550 Fengze Street,
      Quanzhou

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Maximum
      amount secured by the guarantor:

              	 	
                RMB24
      million

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Categories:

              	 	
                Joint
      and several

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Term:

              	 	
                Each
      guarantee period is from the expiry date of each debt performance period
      or the date of advanced payment by the creditor to the two years after the
      expiry date of the last debt or the date of advanced payment by the
      creditor.

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Governing
      law

              	 	
                Laws
      of the People’s Republic of
China
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60798 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

− Appellee

,

v ersus

DEMETRIUS S. RANKIN

,

Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:06

- CR

- 41

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Demetrius Rankin has moved for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 30, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60798 Document: 00514702861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2018No. 17

- 60798

2 leave to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rankin has

filed a response. We have reviewed cou nsel’s brief

, relevant portions of the

record , and Rankin ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-60798 Document: 00514702861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2018
EX-32        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF JAMES H. ALEXANDER AND
             THOMAS E. FERNEAU, III

                      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of World Am
Communications, Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their
knowledge:

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.


Dated: January 28, 2004                /s/  James H. Alexander
                                       James H. Alexander, President



Dated: January 28, 2004                /s/  Thomas E. Ferneau, III
                                       Thomas E. Ferneau, III
                                       Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DISTRICT AT CINCINNATI

Ethan Spier

Plaintiff(s),

:

v. Case Number: C-1-01-54

:

Termination Date: 3/1/04

Donald Elsaesser :

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________________________

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

_____________________________________________________

IN RE: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO LOCAL RULES

RULE 79.2 Disposition of Exhibits, Models, Diagrams, Depositions, and

other materials.

RULE 79.3(e) Sealed, or Confidential Documents shall be disposed of

in accordance with Rule 79.2

Rule 72.2(a) Withdrawal by Counsel

All models, diagrams, depositions, photographs, x-rays and other exhibits and materials

filed in an action or offered in evidence shall not be considered part of the pleadings in the

action and, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall be withdrawn by counsel without

further Order within six (6) months after final termination of the action.

Rule 79.2(b) Disposal by the Clerk

All models, diagrams, depositions, x-rays and other exhibits and materials not withdrawn

by counsel shall be disposed of by the Clerk as waste at the expiration of the withdrawal

period.

Rule 79.3(e)

Sealed or confidential documents shall be disposed of in accordance with Rule 79.2.

JAMES BONINI, CLERK

By:___s/Jan Lahley

Courtroom Deputy

Case 1:01-cv-00054-JS Document 44 Filed 03/04/2004 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEARS ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,
1998 AND 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000
<RESTATED>

<S>                                          <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1998      SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1998      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               727              461
<SECURITIES>                                           0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      4,212            5,877
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0                0
<INVENTORY>                                        1,645              573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  37,049           27,069
<PP&E>                                            16,879           17,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1,070            3,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    68,061           58,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             29,552           28,868
<BONDS>                                           14,077           17,887
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0            4,332
<PREFERRED>                                            1                1
<COMMON>                                              11               13
<OTHER-SE>                                        14,734           (1,042)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      68,061           58,095
<SALES>                                            1,026            2,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2,186            6,719
<CGS>                                              6,843           14,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      6,843           14,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     218            9,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 2,745            6,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (11,308)         (28,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (11,308)         (28,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0                0
<CHANGES>                                              0                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (11,308)         (28,393)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (1.17)           (2.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1.17)           (2.39)


</TABLE>