alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Eiropas Savienības C 134A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 134A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 57. sējums2014. gada 3. maijs |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 134A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

57. sējums2014. gada 3. maijs

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Labojumi |
| 2014/C 134A/01 | Labojums paziņojumā par atklātu konkursu — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Administratori (AD 7) šādās jomās: 1. Digitālā kriminālistika; 2. Operatīvā analīze — (Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais VēstnesisC 88 A, 2014. gada 27. marts) | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

Labojumi

2014/C 134A/01

Labojums paziņojumā par atklātu konkursu — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Administratori (AD 7) šādās jomās: 1. Digitālā kriminālistika; 2. Operatīvā analīze — (Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais VēstnesisC 88 A, 2014. gada 27. marts)

(Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais VēstnesisC 88 A, 2014. gada 27. marts)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 134A/02 | Atskaite par Oficiālā vēstneša C A Sēriju Konkursi | 2 |

2014/C 134A/02

Atskaite par Oficiālā vēstneša C A Sēriju Konkursi

Oficiālā vēstneša

2

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

Labojumi

| 3.5.2014 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 134/1

---

Labojums paziņojumā par atklātu konkursu

EPSO/AD/278/14 – ADMINISTRATORI (AD 7)

šādās jomās:

| 1. | DIGITĀLĀ KRIMINĀLISTIKA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

DIGITĀLĀ KRIMINĀLISTIKA;

| 2. | OPERATĪVĀ ANALĪZE |
| --- | --- |

2.

OPERATĪVĀ ANALĪZE

(“Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis”
  C 88 A, 2014. gada 27. marts
  )

2014/C 134 A/01

7. lappusē VIII sadaļas 1. punktā:

tekstu:

“Termiņš (ieskaitot apstiprināšanu): 2014. gada 29. aprīlis līdz plkst. 12.00 (dienā) pēc Briseles laika.”

lasīt šādi:

“Termiņš (ieskaitot apstiprināšanu): 2014. gada 6. maijs līdz plkst. 12.00 (dienā) pēc Briseles laika.”

---

3.5.2014

| 3.5.2014 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 134/2

---

ATSKAITE PAR OFICIĀLĀ VĒSTNEŠA C A SĒRIJU KONKURSI

2014/C 134 A/02

Lūdzu, skatīt sarakstu ar C A sērijas izdevumiem, kas publicēti šā gada laikā.

Ja nav norādīts citādi, Oficiālo Vēstnesi izdod visās valodu versijās.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

---
Fred NANCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-881

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.5

Exhibit (3)(ii)

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER 3
                                    TO THE
                            1995 RESTATED BYLAWS OF
                              RENTRAK CORPORATION


     WHEREAS, Section 3.2 of the Company's 1995 Restated Bylaws (the "Bylaws")
currently provides that the number of directors shall range from three (3) to
nine (9), with the specific number to be established by resolution of the Board
of Directors;

     WHEREAS, Section 3.2 of the Bylaws further provides that, as long as there
are six or more directors, the directors shall be divided into three classes as
nearly equal in number as possible, and that the directors in each class shall
serve staggered three (3) year terms; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors desires to amend Section 3.2 of the Bylaws
to eliminate the provision regarding classification of directors and staggered
terms.

     NOW THEREFORE, Section 3.2 of the Bylaws be, and it hereby is, amended in
its entirety to read as follows:

          Section 3.2  Number, Tenure and Qualifications.
          -----------------------------------------------
          The number of directors of the corporation shall be not less than
          three or more than nine, with the number of directors to be
          established by resolution of the Board of Directors.  A director shall
          hold office until the annual meeting of shareholders for the year in
          which his or her term expires or until his or her successor is elected
          and qualified, or until death, resignation or removal.


/s/ F. Kim Cox
-----------------------------------
F. Kim Cox, President and Secretary
exv10w25






EXHIBIT 10.25




SUMMARY OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS’ COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL 2009



Base Salaries. Following are the current annual salaries for the executive officers of Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. (the “Company”) who will appear on the Summary Compensation Table
included in the Company’s proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the Company’s 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Named Executive Officers”):




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Named Executive Officer	 	Title	 	Annual Base Salary
	Sally Frame Kasaks
	 	Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer	 	$	1,250,000	 
	Michael L. Henry
	 	Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary	 	$	300,000	 





Annual Bonuses. The Company provides each of the Named Executive Officers with an annual incentive
bonus opportunity based on the performance of the Company and/or the executive. Actual bonus
amounts are determined by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors. Ms.
Kasaks’ target incentive bonus is 100% of her base salary with a maximum incentive bonus of 200% of
her base salary. Mr. Henry’s target incentive bonus is 50% of his base salary with maximum
incentive bonus of 100% of his base salary..



Additional Compensation. The Named Executive Officers are also entitled to participate in various
Company plans, and are subject to other written agreements, in each case as set forth in exhibits
to the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Named
Executive Officers may be eligible to receive perquisites and other personal benefits as disclosed
in the Company’s proxy statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Company’s annual meetings of shareholders.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Joseph HOLT Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3179

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 3, 2017

Filed: April 17, 2017

Stephen R. Casey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sirena Miller Wissler, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S, Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Larry Joseph Holt, Pro Se

Nanci McCarthy, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After Larry Holt pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, *see*18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of conspiring to distribute heroin, *see*21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, the district court1 sentenced him as an armed career criminal. *See*18 U.S.C. § 924(e). He maintains on appeal that the district court erred in concluding that he is an armed career criminal because his conviction for unlawfully using a weapon under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4) is not a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Holt recognizes that our court has already determined that a conviction under this statute is a violent felony, *see United States v. Pulliam,*566 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2009), but he argues that we are not bound by *Pulliam*in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions. We reject Holt’s argument because another panel of our court recently determined that *Pulliam*is still good law despite the same authorities that Holt relies on here. *See United States v.*
      *544
      *Hudson,*851 F.3d 807, 809-10 (8th Cir. 2017). The decision of a prior panel binds our panel. *United States v. Eason,*829 F.3d 633, 641 (8th Cir. 2016).

Affirmed.

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### Jermaine Keith WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David Scott LAUNDRY, Individual; Chesterfield County, Municipal, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6158

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 30, 2017

Decided: September 7, 2017

Jermaine Keith Walker, Appellant Pro Se. '

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Keith Walker appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. *180§ 1983 (2012) complaint for lack of jurisdiction and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012) and designating the dismissal as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). While the district court properly dismissed Walker’s constitutional claims as frivolous, we find that his state law claims should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that such dismissal should have been without prejudice. Moreover, neither a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction nor a dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a strike under § 1915(g). *See Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office,*657 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); *McLean v. United States,*566 F.3d 391, 397 (4th Cir. 2009) (dismissal without prejudice). Because only part of Walker’s action was subject to dismissal on a ground enumerated under § 1915(g), the dismissal does not count as a strike. *See Tolbert v. Stevenson,*635 F.3d 646, 651 (4th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Walker’s action. However, we modify the judgment to reflect that Walker’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the dismissal order is not a strike under § 1915(g). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Walker’s motions for an emergency hearing and to show cause. 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 AS MODIFIED*
First Amendment to Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan - Russell Klosinski



 Exhibit 10.6 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 THE LA PORTE SAVINGS BANK 
 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT 
 DATED AUGUST, 1, 2002 
 FOR 
 RUSS KLOSINSKI 
 THIS AMENDMENT executed on
this 8th day of September, 2003, by and between THE LA PORTE SAVINGS BANK, a state chartered commercial bank located in La Porte, Indiana (the
“Company”), and LEE BRADY (the “Executive”). 
 On August 1, 2002, the Company and the Executive executed the
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”). 
 Pursuant to the power of amendment reserved by Article 7 of the
Agreement, the undersigned hereby amends, in part, said Agreement for the purposes of: (i) changing the vesting schedule. Therefore, 
 Section 2.1.3 shall be added to the Agreement as follows: 
 The benefit amount is subject to a vesting schedule of zero percent
(0.0%) in the first Plan Year, and one hundred percent (100%) thereafter. 
 IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Executive and the Company
have agreed to this First Amendment. 
  

									
	Executive:	 		 	Company:
			
		 		 	THE LA PORTE SAVINGS BANK
				
	/S/    RUSS KLOSINSKI	 		 	By	 	/S/    LEE BRADY
		 	Russ Klosinski	 		 	Title	 	President
STATE of Louisiana v. Gary Lewis WALKER

NO. 2017-KO-1101

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to
(section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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: August 6,
2010

|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|                                               
|/S/  GEORGE R. AYLWARD                         
|George R. Aylward                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director



|                           
|---------------------------
|                           
|/S/    MICHAEL A.
ANGERTHAL
|Michael A. Angerthal       
|Chief Financial 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
  (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: September 8, 2006
    /s/ Josef H. von RickenbachJosef H. von RickenbachChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### Karmel ROE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55471

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Karmel Roe, Pro Se ,

Evan Forrest Anderson, Akerman Sen-terfitt LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Justin Donald Balser, Melissa L. Cizmorris, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Karmel Roe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her *538action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Roe’s action because Roe lacks standing to challenge any assignment of her loan into a securitized trust. *See, e.g., Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,*245 Cal.App.4th 808, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 790, 796 (2016) (holding that an assignment of a loan into a securitized trust that was allegedly forged or untimely was merely voidable and, therefore, the borrower lacked standing to challenge its validity).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Roe leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. *Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,*232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that denial of leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Roe’s contentions that the district court violated her right to due process, incorrectly analyzed relevant case law, and neglected to address any of Roe’s claims.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Garcia NICHOLSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4155

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 13, 2018

Rachael Elizabeth Bushey of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Makar, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS,
EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE DATA) EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AT MARCH 28, 1999 AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 28, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                           4,971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,331
<INVENTORY>                                     80,428
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,142
<PP&E>                                         902,290
<DEPRECIATION>                               (361,097)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 726,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,608
<BONDS>                                        233,370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,665
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   726,832
<SALES>                                        103,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,038
<CGS>                                          103,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,306)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        21
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,809)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,809)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.53)
        

</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

Date: February 15, 2012

Subject: Stakeholder call about MOVES Transition for Regional Conformity Analyses 

From: Meg Patulski, State Measures and Transportation Planning Center, OTAQ

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0393

On December 22, 2010, a conference call was held to discuss stakeholder concerns in 

New York regarding the transition to using MOVES for regional conformity analyses. EPA’s 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality hosted the call based on a request from EPA Region 2 

and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). NYSDEC 

was concerned regarding the start-up challenges for the transition to MOVES for regional 

conformity analyses and any necessary revisions to state implementation plan (SIP) motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. The state had not yet begun using MOVES to understand the future 

implications for transportation conformity determinations in New York nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, for several reasons (e.g., staffing constraints). EPA provided an overview of 

available options for revising existing SIPs with MOVES, pursuant to EPA’s MOVES policy

guidance.
14910-I3-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal AviatioD Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0714; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-041-AD)

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directivesj Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER)

Model EMB-135BJ, -l35ER, -l35KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145EP, 145ER,

-145MP, -145MR, -145XR, and 145LR AiIplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comm 01 tm1M· 7

period.

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products listed above. This act

revises the earlier NPRM by expanding the scope. This proposed AD results from

mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation

authority of another country to ,identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation

product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

It was reported that after commanding the landing gear lever to

down the three green landing gear positioning indication was

displayed followed by tbe LGILEVER DISAGREE EICAS

[engine indicating and crew alerting system] message. The crew

decided to continue the approach and landing procedure. As soon

as the crew identified that the landing gear was not extended

properly, a go-around procedure was successfully perfomled.

During maneuver, the airplane settled momentarily onto the Oaps

and belly.

In'I~"~YM"QL

• • • • • • *

'"
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CYTRX 
CORPORATION'S SEC FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,895,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,917,013
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,272,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,113,976
<PP&E>                                       7,367,227
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,653,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,905,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,039,118
<BONDS>                                      2,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,986
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,240,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,905,995
<SALES>                                        456,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,259,374
<CGS>                                           39,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  282,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,403,382
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             293,048
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,426,292)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,426,292)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (1,626,700)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (6,052,992)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.82)
        

</TABLE>