alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL JASON MILLER

Petitioner, 

v.

WARDEN, CORRECTIONAL 

RECEPTION CENTER

Respondent.

Case No. 1:18-cv-424

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

Magistrate Judge Litkovitz

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s May 28, 2020, 

Report and Recommendation ((“R&R”), Doc. 17). The Magistrate Judge recommends 

that the Court DENY the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), which 

asserted a single claim that Petitioner’s trial attorney provided ineffective assistance 

of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Magistrate Judge found that the 

state courts’ adjudication of this claim was not “contrary to or an unreasonable 

application of Supreme Court precedent,” (R&R at #323), and thus denied relief.

The R&R advised both parties that failure to object within the 14 days specified 

by the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to 

District Court review. (See R&R at #329). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152

(1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to 

require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are 

filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to 

file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R & R ... is forfeiture”); 28 U.S.C. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00424-DRC-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/22/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 330
2

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Nearly four months have now passed, and Miller has yet to file an 

objection to the R&R.

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) and 

DENIES the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to 

enter judgment accordingly.

As reasonable jurists could not disagree with this conclusion, the Court denies 

Miller a certificate of appealability, and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that 

any appeal would be objectively frivolous.

SO ORDERED.

September 22, 2020 

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:18-cv-00424-DRC-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/22/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 331
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Darrell Borne,
the Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|May 6, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/DARRELL BORNEName: Darrell Borne
Title:Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
|----------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation and will be retained by First Horizon Pharmaceutical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT N 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 183-15 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #:

10917
Ohio Changes

McCain Bush 10 Gov 10 AG 06 AG 06 Aud Average PVI

1 - Chabot 44.85% 50.16% 47.98% 46.90% 50.75% 54.69% 49.68% D+1 1 - Chabot 51.77% 6.92% 56.81% 6.65% 55.80% 7.82% 

2 - Schmidt 59.38% 63.90% 60.20% 56.77% 58.35% 62.12% 60.79% R+13 2 - Schmidt 54.23% -5.15% 59.42% -4.48% 55.06% -5.14% 

3 - Turner 52.06% 54.86% 53.10% 54.65% 53.48% 55.54% 53.81% R+5 10 - Turner/Austria 49.31% -2.75% 52.03% -2.83% 51.01% -2.10% 

4 - Jordan 61.05% 65.48% 58.64% 58.02% 55.58% 58.69% 59.89% R+15 4 - Jordan 54.43% -6.62% 59.91% -5.57% 54.52% -4.12% 

5 - Latta 54.00% 61.30% 52.86% 56.22% 50.27% 58.36% 55.36% R+9 5 - Latta 52.20% -1.80% 59.75% -1.55% 51.91% -0.95% 

6 - Johnson 51.37% 51.12% 43.73% 47.00% 39.98% 40.45% 45.33% R+2 6 - Johnson 53.08% 1.71% 53.74% 2.62% 46.63% 2.91% 

7 - Austria 54.58% 57.37% 53.79% 53.10% 54.43% 55.44% 55.12% R+7

8 - Boehner 61.52% 65.11% 61.18% 61.57% 57.64% 61.36% 61.36% R+14 8 - Boehner 60.25% -1.27% 63.42% -1.69% 60.19% -0.99% 

9 - Kaptur 36.74% 41.56% 38.72% 40.03% 37.60% 46.55% 40.23% D+10 9 - Kaptur/Kucinich 31.58% -5.16% 35.59% -5.97% 35.86% -2.85% 

10 - Kucinich 39.73% 41.51% 44.56% 42.43% 41.18% 45.43% 42.48% D+8

11 - Fudge 14.41% 17.52% 18.24% 18.19% 23.74% 22.96% 19.37% D+32 11 - Fudge 17.21% 2.80% 20.31% 2.79% 21.50% 3.26% 

12 - Tiberi 44.97% 51.25% 50.67% 44.12% 53.71% 53.22% 50.77% D+1 12 - Tiberi 53.75% 8.78% 59.52% 8.27% 57.50% 6.83% 

13 - Sutton 42.51% 44.15% 46.26% 43.65% 42.01% 46.82% 44.35% D+5

14 - LaTourette 50.09% 52.79% 53.08% 49.70% 47.04% 53.55% 51.31% R+3 14 - LaTourette 49.45% -0.64% 52.35% -0.44% 52.93% -0.15% 

15 - Stivers 45.39% 50.46% 48.64% 41.24% 52.39% 52.07% 49.79% D+1 15 - Stivers 52.21% 6.82% 56.55% 6.09% 53.00% 4.36% 

16 - Renacci 51.34% 54.03% 53.60% 51.23% 48.26% 53.47% 52.14% R+4 16 - Renacci/Sutton 51.32% -0.02% 54.29% 0.26% 54.99% 1.40% 

17 - Ryan 36.76% 37.08% 35.05% 31.84% 28.94% 35.05% 34.57% D+12 13 - Ryan 35.77% -0.99% 36.91% -0.17% 34.55% -0.50% 

18 - Gibbs 54.03% 57.32% 50.84% 50.01% 49.16% 49.50% 52.17% R+7 7 - Gibbs 50.94% -3.09% 54.96% -2.36% 53.07% 2.23% 

3 - Open 31.39% 37.46% 35.76% 

District District McCain Bush 10 Governor 

Current 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 183-15 Filed: 01/28/1

10918
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. Case No. 2:18-cr-147

Bilal A. El-Yousseph

OPINION AND ORDER

By judgment entered on August 26, 2019, defendant was

sentenced to a term of incarceration of 18 months on Count 1, a

drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846, and a consecutive

term of incarceration of 84 months on Count 2, brandishing, using

and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug crime in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c).

On December 2, 2020, defendant filed a motion for

compassionate release from imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.

§3582(c)(1)(A), alleging that due to obesity, he was at risk of

severe illness from COVID-19. See Doc. 55. Counsel was appointed

to represent the defendant. On December 28, 2020, defense counsel

filed a supplement in support of the motion for compassionate

release. Doc. 58. On January 15, 2021, the government filed a

response in opposition, noting that defendant had failed to show

that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. Doc. 62.

Under §3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a motion for reduction in sentence

for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” can be filed with the

court if the defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies. 

If the defendant presents his request to the warden and receives no

response within thirty days, he may then file a motion in the

district court. See United States v. Daniels, No. 4:08-CR-0464-

SLB, 2020 WL 1938973 at *2-3 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 22, 2020); Guzman v.

United States, No. 2:10-CR-161, 2019 WL 1966106, at *2 (E.D.Tenn.

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 63 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 212
May 2, 2019). This exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional,

but is a mandatory condition which must be enforced if the

government timely objects to the failure to exhaust. United States

v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833-834 (6th Cir. 2020). Defendant alleged

that he submitted a request for compassionate release to the warden

on September 15, 2020, and has not received a response. However,

he has submitted no documentary evidence to substantiate this bare

allegation. Based on this record, the court does not have a

sufficient basis for concluding that defendant has exhausted his

administrative remedies.

Defendant’s motion and supplemental motion for compassionate

release under §3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (Docs. 55 and 58) are denied

without prejudice. The defendant may renew his motion for

compassionate release after he has exhausted his administrative

remedies.

Date: January 21, 2021 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

2

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 63 Filed: 01/21/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 213
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-50285 Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENIGO PEREZ-ROJO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas
(DR-97-CR-341-ALL)
February 12, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Court-appointed counsel for Benigo Perez-Rojo has filed a motion for leave to withdraw as

counsel; Perez-Rojo has not filed a response. Our independent review of the A nders brief and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. S ee Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18

L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967)

. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities and the APPEAL

IS DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1956 

IN RE: MONICA LYNN COLEMAN; COLEMAN CRATEN,

L.L.C.,

Debtors,

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

MONICA LYNN COLEMAN,

Debtor - Appellant,

versus

LORI S. SIMPSON, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.

(CA-04-3453-BEL; BK-99-56381; BK-99-56239; AP-99-5665)

Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 4, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monica Lynn Coleman, Appellant Pro se. Kevin Gerald Hroblak,

WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Monica Lynn Coleman appeals the district court’s order

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion to

reconsider its prior order denying her motion to replace the

Chapter 7 trustee. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Coleman v. Simpson, No. CA-04-3453-BEL, BK-99-

56381, BK-99-56239, AP-99-5665 (D. Md. July 14, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT C 
Exhibit C
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,919
<SECURITIES>                                     7,125
<RECEIVABLES>                                  247,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,833
<INVENTORY>                                     21,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               305,828
<PP&E>                                       1,176,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                 315,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,234,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          234,956
<BONDS>                                        229,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,124
<OTHER-SE>                                     717,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,234,232
<SALES>                                      1,029,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,029,303
<CGS>                                          737,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  737,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               136,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                182,410
<INCOME-TAX>                                    67,602
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            114,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   114,808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
J:\CRUMBA\FORMS\CALENDAR\01-096.WPD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

St. Paul Fire & Marine, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. C-1-01-096

(Hogan, M.J.)

Oswald Company, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

NOTICE

_______________________________________

Please take notice that the above-captioned case, which proceeded with a

telephonic scheduling conference on September 10, 2003, will be continued

before the Honorable Timothy S. Hogan to:

Monday, November 3, 2003, at 9:30 am

The parties are reminded to call into chambers approximately five (5)

minutes prior to 9:30 am at 513-564-7650.

Timothy S. Hogan

United States Magistrate Judge

 s/Barbara A. Crum 

Barbara A. Crum

Courtroom Deputy

cc: All counsel

bac September 10, 2003

Case 1:01-cv-00096-TSH Document 138 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 1 of 1
Ron Wilder, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Case No. 2:17-cv-920 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

The Ohio State University 

Wexner Medical Center, 

Magistrate Judge Jolson 

Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Defendant The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center 

("Defendant") moves the Court to enter partial judgment on the pleadings as to 

Count II of Plaintiff Ron Wilder's ("Plaintiff'') Complaint, in which he alleges age 

discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA''). Mot., 

ECF No. 5. 

Here Defendant, as a state university, is considered an instrumentality of 

the state of Ohio, and as such, is entitled to the same Eleventh Amendment 

immunity from suit as the state. Id. at 3; see Bailey v. Ohio State Univ., 487 F. 

Supp. 601, 605-06 (S.D. Ohio 1980); see also Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3345.011. 

Defendant contends that "because neither Congress nor the State have 

abrogated or waived Ohio's immunity from claims brought [in federal court] under 

the ADEA," Plaintiff's ADEA claim should be dismissed. Id. (citing Kimel v. 

Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) and Latham v. Office of the Attorney 
: 

Gen., 395 F.3d 261, 270 (6th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, 

as indicated in the Rule 26(f) Report. See Jan. 11, 2018, Rep. 2, ECF No. 7. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff's ADEA claim is 

barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 

Defendant's motion and hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Count II of 

Plaintiff's Complaint. All other claims in Plaintiff's Complaint remain pending. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove ECF No. 5 from the Court's pending motions 

list. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case No. 2:17-cv-920 

Ml HAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          58,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               353,792
<PP&E>                                         133,348
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,005
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 617,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          367,829
<BONDS>                                        307,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       834,156
<OTHER-SE>                                    (943,170)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   617,428
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               567,506
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,000,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (450,248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       635
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (452,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (452,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (6.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (6.15)


</TABLE>
Served: July 5, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 5th of July, 2011

INTRA-ALASKA BUSH 

SERVICE MAIL RATES

DOCKET OST-2003-14694

NOTICE OF EXTENSION

On June 10, 2011, we directed parties to show cause why we should not make final the rates 

tentatively set by Order 2011-6-14, with objections due no later than 10 days (June 20) after 

the issuance of the order. On June 14 Peninsula Airways, Inc. (PenAir) requested that we 

extend the deadline for objections by 16 days, i.e., through July 7. By notice dated June 16, 

we granted the request. On June 29, Mr. Hank Myers, on the behalf of the Consolidated 

Carriers, requested an extension to July 18. 

We have decided to grant the request. All parties should file their comments no later than 

July 18, 2011. We note that this is the second extension we have granted, and we anticipate 

not granting any additional extensions.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
February 1 3 , 2015 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M - 30 West Building ground floor, Room W12 - 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Request for extension of exemption (Docket Number FAA - 2010 - 1227) SimC om International Inc. , Center number Q8PX 0 38K, is requesting and extension of our Exemption No. 10209 A which allows relief from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.531(a)(2); 91.531(a)(1); 91.9(a) to the extent necessary to allow SimCom International , Inc. to train, test, and certificate pilots to fly the Cessna Citation, CE500 series aircraft, Singl e - Pilot. We assert that the conditions and reasons regarding the public interest and safe ty made in our original application remain unchanged. If there are an y questions or concerns, or a need for addition al information, please contact me at (480)905 - 3080. We would also like to request a fax copy of the approval and then the original mailed to our office address. Sincere l y, 

# William C. Gant Bill Gant Training Center Manager SimCom International , Inc. bgant@simulator.com (480)905 - 3040

7860 East McClain, Suite 1, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

(480) 905 - 3040 / (800)293 - 3035 (480) 951 - 2709 Fax
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 30, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00443

- CR

IN RE Darrell Eugene BATES

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On June 20, 2014, relator filed a pro se petiti on for writ of mandamus. This court has

determined that we do not have jurisdiction to consider this petition. The petition for writ of

mandamus is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The court’s opinion will issue at a

later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 30 th , 2014

.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 30 th day of June, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2010CR12259 and 2011CR1251W, styled The State of Texas v. Darrell

Eugene Bates , in the 290th Judi cial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melisa Skinner presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COST PLUS, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 29,
2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                          38,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     91,402
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,467
<PP&E>                                         118,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 214,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,804
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   214,699
<SALES>                                        402,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               402,292
<CGS>                                          255,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,586
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,685
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,685
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93


</TABLE>