alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 1 0

- 00 073

- CR

______________________________

ROY CHESTER BROWN, JR. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 0921248

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roy Chester Brown, Jr.

, was convicted of burglary of a habitation and was sentenced to

thirty years’ incarceration. On appeal, he argues that his conviction should be reversed and

remanded since he “was not present during his trial on the merits due to injur ies he had received. ”

W e will affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Even though the issue is not clearly stated as such, we interpret Brown’s argument to allege

that the trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance. 1 The evidence shows that Brown was

present for the c ommencement of the trial when the jury was selected, but failed to appear for the

trial one week later. The trial court overruled an oral motion for continuance

, and the case was

tried to the jury.

When a defendant voluntarily absents himself or herself after pleading to the indictment or

after the jury has been selected, the trial may proceed to its conclusion. T EX . C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

.

A NN . art. 33 .03 (Vernon 20 06). After a warrant was issued for Brown’s arrest, he was present for

the sentencin g hearing.

Brown’s only argument is that he was unable to attend the trial due to injuries. He equates

that situation to a defense in a bail jumping trial and urges that he had a reasonable excuse for

failing to ap pear. It is a defense to the charge o f bail jumping that the defendant had a reasonable

excuse for his or her failure to appear. T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN

. 38.10( c) (Vernon 2003). Since

this is not a bail jumping case

, that statutory defense is not available. Further

, there is no evidence

1 The State has failed to file a brief

, even though we granted the State’s motion for an extension.3

of Bro wn’s injuries. Finally, a motion for continuance must be written showing sufficient cause;

the trial court’s denial of an unsworn, unwritten motion for continuance presents nothing for

appellate review. Dewberry v. State , 4 S.W.3d 735, 756 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1999).

We affirm t he judgment of the trial court

.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: February 16, 2011

Date Decided: February 17 , 2011

Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1458

CHRISTIAN T. MBOUENDE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-190-414) Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steffanie J. Lewis, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lyle D. Jentzer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christian T. Mbouende, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2004); INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). We further find that we lack jurisdiction to review Mbouende’s claim that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen his proceedings. Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir. 2004); Belay-Gebru v. INS , 327 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir. 2003); Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft , 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d Cir. 2003); Ekimian v. INS , 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002); Luis v. INS , 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
2018 EAVS Data Brief: Texas EAVS Jurisdictions 

254 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

15,615,925 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

6,652,574 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

2,749,990 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 1,737,096 

In-Person 639,775 

Online 160,556 

Motor Vehicle Office 3,143,865

Public Assistance 

Office 196,317

Disability Office 10,046 

Military Recruitment 

Office 8,973 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 128,187 

Registration Drives 103,100 

Other Sources or 

Not Categorized 524,659 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

Other Mode 

45,628 In-Person E-Day 1% 2,318,676 

28% 

In-Person Early By Mail 

5,452,510 530,238 

65% 6% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 7,976,548 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 19,048 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 23,972 

8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 

170 173

117 

87 

31 21 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 



9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

✔ 13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

✔ Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data not available”

are shown as zeroes.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed August 14, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-723

Lower Tribunal Nos. F04-22000, F04-22001A, F04-22003, F04-22326, 

F04-22416, F04-22322A, F04-22323, F04-22828A, F04-22319B, 

F04-23283D, F04-23492A, F04-22320, F04-22002, F20-570

________________

Christopher Rivera,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Richard 

Hersch, Judge.

Christopher Rivera, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and GOODEN, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 

2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (announcing two-part test for ineffective 

assistance of counsel requiring the defendant to show that his or her 

counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudiced the defense); Alcorn v. 

State, 121 So. 3d 419, 422 (Fla. 2013) (“[T]o show prejudice, the defendant 

must demonstrate a reasonable probability, defined as a probability sufficient 

to undermine confidence in the outcome, that (1) he or she would have 

accepted the offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly, (2) the 

prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer, (3) the court would have 

accepted the offer, and (4) the conviction or sentence, or both, under the 

offer's terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and 

sentence that in fact were imposed.”); Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 

1252 (Fla. 1997) (“As long as the trial court's findings are supported by 

competent substantial evidence, this Court will not substitute its judgment for 

that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the 

witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.”) 

(internal quotations omitted).
# C_2022463EN.01001701.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/17

---

Appeal brought on 26 August 2022 by Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2022 in Case T-334/21 Mendes de Almeida v Council

(Case C-572/22 P)

(2022/C 463/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida (represented by: R. Leandro Vasconcelos, P. Almeida Sande and M. Tavares, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

By order of 16 September 2022, the President of the Court ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---
No. 11-1534.

#### Anderson *v.*Aon Corp.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
# C_2022398EN.01003701.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/37

---

Order of the General Court of 29 August 2022 — Mellish v Commission

(Case T-176/22) (1)

(2022/C 398/45)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,085,253
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,252,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                   129,411
<INVENTORY>                                    580,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,179,225
<PP&E>                                       1,428,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                 444,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,276,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          984,789
<BONDS>                                        687,184
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,445,447
<COMMON>                                        29,147
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,971,145)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,276,699
<SALES>                                      2,268,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,268,129
<CGS>                                        1,501,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,501,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,278,661
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,508,054)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,508,054)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,508,054)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### COM. v. CARMICHAEL, S.

1254 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

CP-67-CR-0005114-2012 (York)

Affirmed
No. 11-10515.

#### Derringer *v.*Termain et al.

Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: July 30, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: EPA Region 1

SUBJECT: April 21, 2015 Speech to Connecticut Environmental Business Council including 

Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

On April 21, 2015, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding spoke on EPA priorities to the 

Connecticut Environmental Business Council. The speech included the proposed Clean Power 

Plan for Existing Power Plants. 

ATTENDEES

Curt Spalding, EPA

Approximately 20 people attended this conference. Attendance was not taken by EPA
# C_2023112EN.01002001.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 7 December 2022 — KH v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-747/22)

(2023/C 112/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Bergamo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KH

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Question referred

Are Articles 29 and 26 [of] Directive 2011/95 (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that contained in Article 2(1)(a) [of] Decree-Law No 4/2019, which provides for a requirement of 10 years’ residency in Italy, in addition to the condition of 2 years of continuous residency prior to application, in order to access an anti-poverty benefit supporting access to employment and social integration, such as the ‘basic income’?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

James Franklin Boyle, * From the 29th District Court

 of Palo Pinto County

Trial Court No. 15795.

Vs. No. 11-17-00107-CR * April 4, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Stretcher, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BUSH AIR CARGO, INC 

FAA CASE NO. 2015WP10102 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

Bush Air Cargo, Inc., pursuant to a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated 

February 4, 2016, requests a hearing in the above referenced FAA civil penalty action 

DAlEO ilii• 22> fuy of Fobruruy:,2016. / 

"··~~MeV<----

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on February 22, 2016 

a copy of the foregoing was delivered 

by U.S. Mail to: 

Pat Basinger 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

222 West 7'h A venue, # 14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilber Wright Building-Ste 2Wl 000 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 0591 

'-'Barton M. Tiernan 

President/General Counsel 

Bush Air Cargo, Inc. 

. Barton M. Tieman 

President and General Counsel 

Bush Air Cargo, Inc. 

P.O. Box 93144 

Anchorage, Ak 99509 

(907) 277-7657 

i. 

'
fxehg 

hle 

fxjog 

gxpoi 

ʜalloVUʑoWnVed 

ik 

ik 

h 

pj 

ʜalloVUejecVed 

OH!ʛKOʛ 

M#'#& 

&.#)(/R!#.,, 

OȨ

(.,(. I

!MV 

P/&#˽ #.(

OȨ 

!##&#.# ˽!(3 

M#&#.,3 

R,/#.'(.OȨ 

O. ,S..˽!(3 R!#.,.#)(!,#0

R!#.,.#)(O. , 

27152 

72811 

8856 

1101 3245 6271

0 383 49 0 

egiUVTaVion#oTmoWTce 

oValegiUVeTedSoVeTU 

595F322 

ecVionʛVSoVeTegiUVTaVion 

gistrtion#ormsi; 

154F280 

ʑon˄TmaVionNoVi˄caVionUenV 

21F446 

P)&&#(! 

P& 

UO˳˽V˽ ˽(. P,)0##)(& 

ˏ&&). 

,&3V). 

˳(., 

V).3 

M#& 

T/,()/. 

O.,

254390 

57133 

1553 73 2558 2057 0 

ecVion#VWTnoWVb[MeVhod 

˳)/(.#/&& ˳)/(. 

P,. 

R$. P,)0##)(& 

O.,

170 

50 

0 0 

tion"-Pro;isionlBllots 

U(#),'S,0# 

N)('#&#.,3O0,

O., 

ecVionʜVOʑʛSʛ 

1F716 

821 

1 

2F538 

ʜalloVUTanUmiVVed 

OʛL OʛL 

PToXiUionalʜalloVoValyhlp WTnoWVoValyhlgxpoo 

ltG OH!AKOA

OʛL 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

- -

- -

- - -

gefk"ʛS!aVaʜTief
	

U ' 

"

" - '-

"

- "

"

- - - "

" "
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL ECKARD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA THOMAS, Deputy, Snohomish

County Jail; CLINTON MOLL, Deputy,

Snohomish County Jail,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

JAMIE KANE, Deputy, Snohomish County

Jail,

Defendant. No. 20

- 35267

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 00104

- RSM

MEMORAND UM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021 * *

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously c oncludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35267

Washington state prisoner Gabriel Eckard appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violations arising from his pretrial detention . We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross

- motions for

summary judgment

. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego , 670

F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Eckar d failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendants’ use of a restraint chair was not reasonably related to the legitimate

objectives of maintaining jail safety and security

. See Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S.

520, 538

- 39 (1979) (“Abs ent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part

of detention facility officials . . . if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial

detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not,

without more, amount to punishment.” (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
         UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
         1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
         STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                              11,320,000
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       9,483,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        472,000
<INVENTORY>                         5,829,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    28,280,000
<PP&E>                              4,564,000
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      37,531,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               10,851,000
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            54,000
<OTHER-SE>                          23,486,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        37,531,000
<SALES>                             38,966,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    38,966,000
<CGS>                               24,539,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       35,650,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    413,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (174,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     3,077,000
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,169,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        1,908,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .35
        

</TABLE>
### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .

Agreement s Adopte d b yth e Traffi c Conference s o f th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n OST-2010-006 9

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENT S

BYTH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR TASSOCIATIO N lAT A AGREEMEN T APPROVE D & IMMUNIZE D DOCKET OST - / ^ - OOC/ ^ ACTIO N DATE ^ Thi s approval andgran t

o f antitrus t immunity i s subject , wher e applicable , t o condition s previousl y imposed . Thi s actio n i s effectiv e after 7 day s unles s apetitio n i s filedunde r 1 4 CF R385.3 0 o r

arevie w i s undertake n o n th e Department' s ow n motion . I n vie w o f th e agreement' s noncontroversia l natur e an dth e availability o f th e aboye43rocedure , th e 21-daj ' perio di n 1 4 CF R303.4 2 i s waived .



### 1 9 Marc h 201 0 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Dougla s Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h Americ a Intemationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n lATAWashington , 177 6 KSt . N.W . #12 " Floo r Washingto n D C 2000 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary financial  information extracted  from the
Statement of Financial  Position for Princeton  Mining  Company at December
31, 1999 (audited)  and the Statement  of Operations  for the  year ended
December 31, 1999 (audited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             113
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   113
<PP&E>                                          10,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,473
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       956,914
<OTHER-SE>                                    (982,274)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (25,360)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,369
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,021
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (27,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27,390)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,390)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.003)








</TABLE>