alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dale DOMINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-16211

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*643Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 20, 2017

Julie Cybelle Reagin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Dale Domino, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dale Domino appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in the United States’s action to collect unpaid federal reinsured student loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *United States v. Falcon,*805 F.3d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the United States because Domino faded to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to his liability for the indebtedness alleged in the Certificates of Indebtedness, *See id.*at 876 (setting forth prima facie case and parties’ respective burdens on summary judgment in an action brought by the United States to recover unpaid federally reinsured student loans).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Domino’s untimely motion for discovery because Domino failed to show what material facts would have been discovered that would have precluded summary judgment. *See Klingele v. Eikenberrg,*849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth standard of review and recognizing that “[t]he burden is on the nonmoving party ... to show what material facts would be discovered that would preclude summary judgment”).

We reject as without merit Domino’s contentions that the district court was required to appoint counsel for his entire action because Domino did not move for appointment of new counsel after his counsel withdrew.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 182A/14 t

| | ISSN 1977-0987 |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 182A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 5714 ta' Ġunju 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0987

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 182A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 5714 ta' Ġunju 2014

---

| Avviż Nru | Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avviżi |
| | PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI |
| | L-Uffiċċju għas-Selezzjoni tal-Persunal tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Avviż ta’ kanċellazzjoni | 1 |

Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

V   Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

L-Uffiċċju għas-Selezzjoni tal-Persunal tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Avviż ta’ kanċellazzjoni

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Reviżjoni tal-Ġurnali Uffiċjali C A Kompetizzjoni | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Reviżjoni tal-Ġurnali Uffiċjali C A Kompetizzjoni

2

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

V Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

L-Uffiċċju għas-Selezzjoni tal-Persunal tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 182/1

---

AVVIŻ TA’ KANĊELLAZZJONI

2014/C 182 A/01

Il-kompetizzjonijiet ġenerali:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 – qarrejja tal-provi (AST 3) tal-lingwa Griega (EL)

  u |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 – qarrejja tal-provi (AST 3) tal-lingwa Griega (EL)

u

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 – qarrejja tal-provi (AST 3) tal-lingwa Portugiża (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 – qarrejja tal-provi (AST 3) tal-lingwa Portugiża (PT),

li l-avviżi tagħhom ġew ippubblikati f’Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
   (1), huma kkanċellati.

---

(1)  ĠU C 131 A fit-8 ta’ Mejju 2013

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 182/2

---

REVIŻJONI TAL-ĠURNALI UFFIĊJALI C A KOMPETIZZJONI

2014/C 182 A/02

Hawn taħt għandek issib il-lista ta' C A ppubblikati matul din is-sena.

Ħlief meta indikat mod ieħor, il-Ġurnali Uffiċjali huma ppubblikati fil-lingwi kollha.

| 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 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

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

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6360 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6360

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to assign the highest priority 
  status for hospital care and medical services provided through the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans who are former prisoners of 
                                  war.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2023

  Mr. Walberg (for himself, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Guthrie, and Mr. 
 Gottheimer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to assign the highest priority 
  status for hospital care and medical services provided through the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans who are former prisoners of 
                                  war.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``POW Priority Care Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. HIGHEST PRIORITY STATUS FOR ENROLLMENT OF FORMER PRISONERS OF 
              WAR IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    (a) Enrollment.--Section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking ``and veterans'' and inserting ``, 
                veterans''; and
                    (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting 
                ``, and veterans who are former prisoners of war.''; 
                and
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``who are former 
        prisoners of war or''.
    (b) Extended Care Services.--Section 1710B(c)(2)(D) of such title 
is amended by inserting ``a veteran who is a former prisoner of war 
or'' before ``a veteran who''.
    (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
with respect to veterans who are former prisoners of war before, on, or 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

      In connection with the Annual Report of Internet Capital Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Kirk Morgan, Chief 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, as amended, 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/ R. Kirk Morgan
-----------------------------
R. Kirk Morgan
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2006
ex10_4.htm


  
Exhibit 10.4


 



Amendment to Change in Control Agreement


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made on and as of the 19th day of January, 2012, by and between Community Partners Bancorp (“CPB”), a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey which serves as a bank holding company, with its principal office at 1250 Highway 35 South, Middletown, New Jersey 07748; Two River Community Bank (“TRCB”), a banking corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey which is a wholly owned subsidiary of CPB, with its principal office at 1250 Highway 35 South, Middletown, New Jersey 07748; and A. Richard Abrahamian (“Executive”), whose business address is 1250 Highway 35 South, Middletown, New Jersey 07748.


WHEREAS, CPB, TRCB and Executive entered into that certain Change in Control Agreement, which the parties wish to amend or further amend, as the case may be, by the execution and delivery of this Amendment so as to eliminate any doubt as to the Term of the Change in Control Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, which the parties to this Amendment acknowledge to be legally sufficient, CPB, TRCB and Executive, intending to be legally bound, agree that the Change in Control Agreement is amended by this Amendment only as follows:



	
  

	
1.

	
The text of Section 12a. of the Change in Control Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and is replaced by the following:







“Except as otherwise provided for hereunder, this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and shall remain in effect until May 31, 2013 or until the end of the Contract Period, whichever is later.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CPB and TRCB have caused this First Amendment to Change in Control Agreement to be signed by their respective duly authorized representatives pursuant to the authority of their Boards of Directors, and Executive has personally executed this Agreement, all as of the day and year first written above.







WITNESS:


 







 



	/s/ Nicole Nielsen           	/s/ A. Richard Abrahamian
	 	

        A.  Richard Abrahamian, individually




	 	 
	 	 
	ATTEST: 	        COMMUNITY PARTNERS BANCORP
	 	        TWO RIVER COMMUNITY BANK
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Michael W. Kostelnik	By: /s/ William D. Moss
	Michael W. Kostelnik, Secretary	        William D. Moss
	 	        Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose OCHOA-CALEDO, also known as Ramiro Cerna-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11417 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 7, 2017

Gail A. Hayworth, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

*345PER CURIAM: *

Jose Ochoa-Caledo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1)-(2). The presentenee report (PSR) recommended an advisory guidelines range of 24 to 30 months of imprisonment. The district court sentenced Ochoa-Caledo to 40 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Ochoa-Caledo challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. In evaluating whether a district court committed a procedural error in the sentencing determination, we employ a de novo standard of review. *United States v. Garcia Mendoza,*587 F.3d 682, 688 (5th Cir. 2009).

Ochoa-Caledo argues that the district court committed procedural error by misapplying the provisions of the Guidelines governing departures in determining that an upward departure was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s. However, the record reflects that the district court imposed a non-guidelines sentence or upward variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. *See United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, Ochoa-Caledo’s arguments are inapposite.

He also contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to adequately explain its decision to impose an upward variance. At sentencing, the district court listened to the arguments and statements made by defense counsel and Ochoa-Caledo. The district court also adopted the PSR and the PSR Addendum, considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and stated reasons in support of the upward variance. Specifically, the district court noted the “large number of occasions” in which Ochoa-Caledo “illegally entered the United States.” The district court also stated that Ochoa-Caledo had “quite a criminal history” and that none of his prior convictions received criminal history points. Even if the district court “might have said more,” the record makes clear that the court considered all of “the evidence and arguments,” and its statement of reasons for the sentence imposed was “legally sufficient.” *Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lindsey EWING, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10099 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 21, 2017

*408James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Erin Brennan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Lindsey Ewing raises arguments that are foreclosed by *United States v. Alcantar,*733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013), and *United States v. Trejo,*610 F.3d 308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2010). In *Alcantar,*we rejected the argument that *Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,*567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), affected our prior jurisprudence rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). *Alcantar,*733 F.3d at 146. In *Trejo,*we applied the plain error standard to a factual sufficiency claim that was .raised for the first time in this court. *Trejo,*610 F.3d at 313. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of .time is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### James T. BENN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 22332.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 15, 1966.

William H. Deck, John Glandon Davies, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Mitchell Rogovin, Chief Counsel, I.R.S., Glen E. Hardy, Atty., I.R.S., Richard M. Roberts, Act. Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Stapleton, David 0. Walter, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing of 366 F. '2d 778 and Reconsideration is denied.

This petition complains of the fact that, in its prior decision, this Court •stated that all the issues were issues of fact, without commenting upon the mixed issues of law and fact, and the legal determinations of the Tax Court, of which it complains. The opinion by this Court is amended to read as follows:

The Tax Court correctly dealt with the legal questions and the mixed questions of law and fact. None of these is of .sufficient significance to require an opinion by this Court. All of the remaining issues were purely questions of fact. They were decided by the Tax Court upon evidence which it was entitled to credit. The decision by the Tax Court on these issues is not clearly erroneous, and it is therefore

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the****Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”)for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Matthew D. Peiffer, Chief FinancialOfficer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Date: February 10,  2006 | /s/ Matthew D. Peiffer                             |   |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | Matthew D. Peiffer                                 |
|                          | Chief Financial  Officer, Secretary and  Treasurer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carla Janet LEAL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41705 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 27, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carla Janet Leal, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The’ attorney appointed to represent Carla Janet Leal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Leal 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 *418nonfrivolous 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.

*

 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.
Page 1

Aerial Advantages LLC

6 Ross St

Nashua NH 03060

EIN: 47-4270471

Contact: Brent Forman

Tel. 781-820-3923

Brent@AerialAdvantages.com

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Aerial Advantages, LLC Request to Amend Exemption No. 14744 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3928

Dear Sir or Madam,

On Feb 10, 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") granted to Aerial Advantages, LLC Exemption 

No. 14744 Docket No. FAA-2015-3928. The Exemption allows Aerial Advantages to operate certain small 

unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS") to perform aerial services. Aerial Advantages hereby respectfully 

requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow Aerial Advantages to operate additional types of small 

UAS under the same conditions and limitations set forth in the exemption.

1. Additional Aircraft

In addition to the two types of small UAS already authorized by the Exemption (i.e., DJI F450 and DJI F550

aircraft), Aerial Advantages wishes to amend the Exemption to also allow Aerial Advantages to operate the 

following models listed below. All models listed are small UASs, weighing less than 55 pounds including 

payload, with an airspeed capability of less than 87 knots (100 mph).

Manufacturer Model

3D Robotics Solo

Manual http://3drobotics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/v5_08_21_15.pdf

3D Robotics X8+

Manual http://3drobotics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/X8-Operation-Manual-vC.pdf

DJI S1000

Manual http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/s1000/en/S1000_User_Manual_v1.10_en.pdf

DJI S900

Manual http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/s900/en/S900_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf
Page 2

DJI Phantom 3

Manual http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.4_en.pdf

DJI Matrice

Manual: http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/M100_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf

Freefly Systems: Alta

Manual http://d27w8s76bjlz9v.cloudfront.net/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/28175748/ALTA_Manual_RevB.pdf

2. Aerial Advantages requests an extension to the Exemption based on the date of the amendment decision.

Respectfully submitted,

Brent Forman

Brent Forman, Owner

Aerial Advantages, LLC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM XIRCOM,
INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 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>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          62,388
<SECURITIES>                                   282,205
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,300
<INVENTORY>                                     20,462
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               442,268
<PP&E>                                          82,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 502,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,429
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     425,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   502,897
<SALES>                                        124,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,111
<CGS>                                           67,038
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,432
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,707
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,725
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46


</TABLE>