alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60422

Summary Calendar

VICTOR REYNOSO BORJA, also known as Victor Reynoso-Borja,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 061 423

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Reynoso Borja, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks a petition for

review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his

application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We deny

Borja’s petition for review.

We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the

immigration judge’s (IJ) decision influences the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d

588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). With respect to the determination that Borja’s prior

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60422 Document: 00511088761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2010
No. 09-60422

2

conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1325 for transporting an illegal alien made him

inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i); that such offense constituted a

bar to good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(3); and that, in the absence

of good moral character, he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal

under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), Borja has not shown that the BIA’s decision was

either unconstitutional or based upon an incorrect interpretation of

§ 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). See Soriano v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 318, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2007).

To the extent that Borja challenges our holding in Soriano, which

foreclosed all of the arguments he raised before the BIA, his argument is

unavailing. We have held that “in the absence of intervening Supreme Court

precedent,” one panel cannot overrule another panel even if it disagrees with the

prior panel’s holding. See Montesano v. Seafirst Commercial Corp., 818 F.2d

423, 425-26 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, Borja’s argument that the Government

did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he had been convicted of an

alien smuggling scheme is without merit. The Government provided both a

criminal complaint and a judgment of conviction that demonstrated that Borja

did not innocently offer a ride to an illegal alien, but aided and abetted an alien’s

further entry into the United States with “knowledge and reckless disregard”

that the alien had entered the country in violation of the law. Accordingly, we

deny his petition for review.

DENIED.

Case: 09-60422 Document: 00511088761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2010
**DEFENSE LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS**

**JOINT FINANCE/SUPPLY (15-3) PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING**

**AGENDA**

***Topic: Orders Initiated Outside of Component Systems***
No. 10-1462.

#### Robert C. Konop, Petitioner v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

565 U.S. 822, 132 S. Ct. 110,

181 L. Ed. 2d 36,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5356.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 401 Fed. Appx. 248.
### Analysis Report

January 15, 2010 CEDAR FALLS UTILITIES PO BOX 769 CEDAR FALLS IA 50613 ATTN: AMY K. SHATEK Page 1 of 1

Client Sample ID: Date Received: MAMMOTHPULV122309 Cedar Falls Utilities Sample ID By: Cedar Falls Utilities Sample Taken At: Cedar Falls Utilities Sample Taken By: Pulverized Coal Sample Type: BPO1800 P. O. #: COAL Product Description: Date Sampled: Dec 29, 2009 Dec 29, 2009

SGS Minerals Sample ID: 491-0941947-001 As Received Dry DAF Moisture, Total % ASTM D3302 20.54 Ash % ASTM D3174 5.79 7.29 Sulfur % ASTM D4239 Method B 0.45 0.56 Gross Calorific Value BTU/LB ASTM D5865 9928 12493 13476 Carbon % ASTM D5373 56.91 71.62 Hydrogen % ASTM D5373 3.86 4.86 Nitrogen % ASTM D5373 1.88 2.37 Oxygen % ASTM D5373 (by diff) 10.57 13.30 Chlorine, Cl % ASTM D4208 0.01 0.01 Fluorine, F UG/G ASTM D3761 31 39.0 Mercury, Hg UG/G ASTM D6722 0.03 Method

Method Result Tests Unit Silver, Ag ASTM D3683 <0 μg/g ANALYSIS OF ASH Barium, Ba ASTM D3682 65 μg/g TRACE ELEMENTS - DRY BASIS Arsenic, As ASTM D3683 3 μg/g Cadmium, Cd ASTM D3683 <0 μg/g Chromium, Cr ASTM D3683 4 μg/g Lead, Pb ASTM D3683 4 μg/g Selenium, Se ASTM D3683 0 μg/g Vanadium, V ASTM D3683 10 μg/g Zinc, Zn ASTM D3683 5 μg/g

Vanessa Chambliss Branch Manager
SGS North America Inc. Minerals Services Division 16130 Van Drunen Road South Holland t(708) 331-2900f (708) 333-3060 www.sgs.com/minerals Member of the SGS Group (Société Générale de Surveillance) This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at http://www.sgs.com/terms_and_conditions.htm

.Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein. Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company’ s findings at the time of its intervention only and within the limits of Client’ s instructions, if any. The Company’ s sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
EXHIBIT 32.1



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Regency Centers Corporation,the general partner of Regency Centers, L.P.(the
Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



Date: May 9, 2005



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Martin E. Stein, Jr.
|Martin E. Stein, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer
www.cdc.gov/TraumaticBrainInjury

Source: Faul M, Xu L, Wald MM, Coronado VG. Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States:

Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations and Deaths 2002 – 2006. Atlanta (GA): Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2010.

Estimated Average Annual Numbers of Traumatic Brain Injury–Related Emergency Department Visits,

Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Sex, United States, 2002–2006

An estimated average annual number of 998,176 TBIs occurred among males compared with 693,329 among females.

Overall, approximately 1.4 times as many TBIs occurred among males as among females.

TBI BY SEX

COMPARING THE NUMBERS

SEX EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS HOSPITALIZATIONS DEATHS TOTAL

Male 789,925 170,257 37,994 998,176

Female 574,870 104,890 13,569 693,329
www.cdc.gov/TraumaticBrainInjury

Source: Faul M, Xu L, Wald MM, Coronado VG. Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States:

Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations and Deaths 2002 – 2006. Atlanta (GA): Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2010.

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 ≥75

Age Group

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Per 100,000

Estimated Average Annual Rates of Traumatic Brain Injury-Combined EmergencyDepartment Visits,

Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Sex, United States, 2002–2006

Male

Female

Among all age groups, TBI rates were

higher for males than for females.

Males aged 0 to 4 years had the highest rates of TBI-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations and deaths combined (1,451 per

100,000). Rates were also high for females aged 0 to 4 (1,218 per 100,000), and for both males and females aged 15 to 19 years (896 per

100,000), and 75 years and older (932 per 100,000).

TBI BY SEX

COMPARING THE RATES
No. 11-5641.

#### Jose Gonzalez, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 936, 132 S. Ct. 387,

181 L. Ed. 2d 243,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6251.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 50 So. 3d 633.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP8.35-1 APPENDIX 8.35

AP8.35. APPENDIX 8.35

DEFENSE AUTOMATIC ADDRESSING SYSTEM

CUSTOMER ASSET REPORT STATUS

(MATERIEL RETURNS PROGRAM)

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Document Identifier Code 1-3 Enter DIC FTQ.

Routing Identifier Code 4-6 Enter the RIC for the DAAS facility.

Media and Status 7 Enter data as contained in DIC FTC, DIC

FTE, or DIC FTF.

Stock Number 8-22 Enter data as contained in DIC FTC, DIC

FTE, or DI FTF.

Unit of Issue 23-24 Enter data as contained in DI FTC, or DI 

FTF.

Quantity 25-29 a. Enter the quantity.

b. For ammunition and ammunition 

related items only (items in Federal supply 

froup (FSG) 13 and for Federal supply 

classification (FSC) 1410, 1420, 1427, 

1440, 5330, 5865, 6810 or 8140), enter an 

“M” in rp 29 to express in thousands any 

quantity exceeding 99,999. Example: 

Express a quantity of 1,950,000 as 

1950M (1950 in rp 25-28 and an “M” in rp 

29).

Document Number 30-43 Enter data as contained in DIC FTC, DIC

FTE, or DIC FTF.

Suffix 44 Enter data as contained in DIC FTC, DIC

FTE, or DIC FTF.

Supplementary Address 45-50 Enter data as contained in DIC FTC, DIC

FTE, or DIC FTF.

Signal 51 Enter data as contained in DIC FTC, DIC

FTE, or DIC FTF.

Project 57-59 Enter data as contained in DIC FTC, DIC

FTE, or DIC FTF.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP8.35-2 APPENDIX 8.35

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Blank 60-64 Leave blank.

Status 65-66 Enter status code.

Routing Identifier Code 67-69 Enter the RIC of ICP to which all future 

DIC FT_ transactions shall be directed.

Blank 70-80 Leave blank.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  E USEBIO P. G ONZALES ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 01-1516



#  S TATE OFM ARYLAND D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH & M ENTAL H YGIENE ; S TATE OFM ARYLAND ,

Defendants-Appellees. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.

(CA-00-3557-S) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 20, 2002 Before WILKINS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Herbert R. O’Conor, III, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. J. JosephCurran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Cynthia Peltzman, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Eusebio P. Gonzales, M.D., appeals the district court’s order granting the collective motion to dismiss of the State of Maryland and theState of Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, and dismissing with prejudice Gonzales’ employment discrimination action alleging disparate treatment, hostile work environment, retaliation, civil conspiracy, and constructive discharge. The standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is de novo. Korb v. Lehman , 919 F.2d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 1990). In general, such a dismissal should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set offacts which would support his claim and entitle him to relief. In considering a motion to dismiss, the court should accept as true all wellpleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g. , De Sole v. United States , 947 F.2d 1169, 1171 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials presented in the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gonzales v. Maryland Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene , No. CA00-3557-S (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2001). 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 2 G ONZALES v. S TATE OF M ARYLAND
An equal opportunity employer 

1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White

Washington, DC 20005-4070 Health Sciences Manager 

Tel 202-682-8344 

Fax 202-682-8270 

whiter@api.org

April 26, 2012 

Byron J. Bunker, 

Acting Division Director 

Compliance Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency 

2000 Traverwood Drive 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 

Re: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: 2nd

Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: Embryo-Fetal Toxicity Study in 

Rats by Inhalation Exposure (Study No. 05-4287) 

Dear Mr. Bunker: 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), 

is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) 

Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation: 

 2nd Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: Embryo-Fetal Toxicity 

Study in Rats by Inhalation Exposure (Study No. 05-4287) 

 The study director’s response to comments from EPA, the peer-reviewers, an 

independent quality assurance (QA) auditor, and the RG (Checklist April 24, 2012)

The RG believes the 2nd draft is ready for final review by EPA as all significant comments have 

been addressed by the study director in this version. However, the RG wants to point out the 

following issues. 

1. Upon reviewing the study director’s responses, the RG had the following additional 

comments; 

a. The Title of Table 4 in Appendix M must be corrected. The Table is entitled, 

Mean Uterus Weights. The absolute value is correctly included; however, the 

adjusted value is not the adjusted uterine weight, but the adjusted maternal 

BODY weight (terminal body weight minus gravid uterine weight). Please 

provide a footnote as shown in Report Table 8, and revise this table title. 

b. There needs to be some indication in the final QA Statement that QA has 

reviewed this report since 2006. 

The RG believes that none of these issues compromise the interpretation of the results and will 

confirm they are corrected in the final report. 

 
April 26, 2012 

Page 2 of 2 

If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please 

contact me. 

Regards, 

Russell D. White 

Enclosures on CD: 1) 2nd Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: EmbryoFetal Toxicity Study in Rats by Inhalation Exposure (Study No. 05-4287) 

2) The study director’s response to comments from EPA, the peerreviewers, an independent quality assurance (QA) auditor, and the RG 

(Checklist April 24, 2012) 

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
## IN THE COUR T OF CRIM INA L A PPEA LS
OF TEXA S

N O

. P D

- 0 8 7 5

- 2 0

J A C K I E L E T T
, A p p e l l a n t

V

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E A U S T I N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

B U R N E T C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m

. Y E A R Y
, J

. , fi l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h S L A U G H T E R
, J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f s e v e n t e e n c o u n t s o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a c h i l d

.

P u n i s h m e n t w a s a s s e s s e d a t f i f t e e n y e a r s c o n f

i n e m e n t o n C o u n t 1 a n d f i f t e e n y e a r s

c o n f i n e m e n t o n C o u n t 1 7

. A s t o C o u n t s 2 t h r o u g h 1 6

, p u n i s h m e n t w a s a s s e s s e d a t t e nJ A C K IE L E T T

- 2

y e a r s c o n f

i n e m e n t o n e a c h c o u n t

, t h e s e n t e n c e s w e r e s u s p e n d e d a n d a p p e l l a n t w a s p l a c e d

o n c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n f o r t e n y e a r s o n e a c h c o u n t

. In t h e b i l l o f c o s t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t

a s s e s s e d A p p e l l a n t a $ 2 5 t i m e p a y m e n t f e e

. S e e T E X

. L O C AL G O V ’ T C O D E § 1 3 3

. 1 0 3

. O n

a p p e a l

, t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s s t r u c k a p o r t i o n o f t h a t f e e a s b e i n g u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

. L e t t v

.

S t a t e , N o

. 0 3

- 1 9

- 0 0 1 0 5

- C R ( T e x

. A p p

. – A u s t i n A u g u s t 1 3

, 2 0 2 0 )

.

T h e S t a t e h a s f

i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w a r g u i n g t h a t t h e t i m e

p a y m e n t f

e e w a s p r e m a t u r e l y a s s e s s e d

. W e r e c e n t l y h a n d e d d o w n o u r o p i n i o n i n D u l i n v

.

S t a t e , N o s

. P D

- 0 8 5 6

- 1 9 & P D

- 0 8 5 7

- 1 9

, 2 0 2 1 T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. L E X IS 2 7 3 ( T e x

. C r i m

.

A p p

. M a r

. 3 1

, 2 0 2 1 )

, i n w h i c h w e h e l d t h a t t h e t i m e p a y m e n t f e e w a s a s s e s s e d

p r e m a t u r e l y b e c a u s e t h e p e n d e n c y o f a p p e a l s u s p e n d s t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y c o u r t c o s t s

.

A c c o r d i n g l y , w e g r a n t g r o u n d o n e o f t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w ,

v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s , a n d r e m a n d t h i s c a s e t o t h e C o u r t o f

A p p e a l s f

o r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n

. T h e S t a t e ’ s o t h e r g r o u n d s a r e

r e f u s e d

.

D A T E D E L IV E R E D : M a y 1 2

, 2 0 2 1

D O N O T P U B L IS H
No. 11-5161.

#### Andrea Bloodworth, aka Andrea Thettle Green, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 892, 132 S. Ct. 276,

181 L. Ed. 2d 164,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5492.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 412 Fed. Appx. 639.
No. 10-10432.

#### Gary Pryce, Petitioner v. Dale Artus, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility.

565 U.S. 836, 132 S. Ct. 142,

181 L. Ed. 2d 61,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5447.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1224SD

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of South Dakota.

*

David Harry Flute, Sr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: October 22, 1998

Filed: October 28, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, ROSS, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

David Harry Flute, Sr., appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual abuse. See

18 U.S.C. §§ 1153; 2241(a); 2246(2)(A)-(B) (1994). Flute contends the evidence is

insufficient to support his convictions. In presenting its case to the jury, the

Government offered the testimony of two eyewitnesses, two physicians who examined

the victim following Flute’s attack, a criminologist, and the victim herself. After

reviewing the record, we are satisfied sufficient evidence exists from which a

reasonable jury could find Flute guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States

v. Eagle, 133 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 1998). Flute also argues the district court

erroneously denied his motion for a continuance after a subpoenaed witness failed to
-2-

report. The district court allowed Flute to make an offer of proof, and in a telephone

conference the potential witness testified he saw a handwritten document in which the

witness believed the victim sought to dismiss the charges against Flute. The witness

did not have the document, and when he was unable to elaborate on when he saw it,

what it said, and where it was, the district court concluded the testimony was irrelevant

and denied Flute’s motion. Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion

in this ruling. We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it

denied Flute’s pre-trial motion to introduce evidence that the victim had falsely accused

others of sexual abuse. See United States v. Bartlett, 856 F.2d 1071, 1087-89 (8th Cir.

1988).

We affirm Flute’s convictions. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE BLANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000,  AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,725,110
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,792,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (130,000)
<INVENTORY>                                         88,996
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,664,426
<PP&E>                                           4,913,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (913,474)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,006,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              561,307
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,112,722
<COMMON>                                               435
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,290,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,006,256
<SALES>                                          2,240,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,325,138
<CGS>                                              529,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,963,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,637,878)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,637,878)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,637,878)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.43)


</TABLE>
No. 11-5412.

#### Lamar Atu Blackwell, Petitioner v. Colorado.

565 U.S. 905, 132 S. Ct. 307,

181 L. Ed. 2d 188,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5828.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.

Same case below, 251 P.3d 468.