alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18477]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
Amended

    Consistent with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, and 
42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is hereby given that on June 25, 1998, a 
proposed consent decree in United States v. Cornell-Dubilier 
Electronics, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 92-11865-REK, was lodged 
with the United States District Court for the District of 
Massachusetts. The proposed Consent Decree will resolve the United 
States' claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., 
on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') against 
defendants Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. (``CDE'') and Federal 
Pacific Electric Company (``FPE'') relating to the Sullivan's Ledge 
Superfund Site (``Site'') in New Bedford, Massachusetts. The Complaint 
alleges that CDE and FPE are liable to the United States pursuant to 
Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA.
    Pursuant to the Consent Decree, CDE and FPE shall pay $1.581 
million to the United States in satisfaction of their alleged liability 
for past and future response costs pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA. 
Pursuant to separate agreements, CDE and FPE will also pay 
approximately $4 million to certain prior settling parties who are 
currently performing the remediation at the Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Any comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should 
refer to United States v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. et al., 
Civil Action No. 92-11865-REK, D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-388A.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, District of Massachusetts, J. W. McCormack Post 
Office and Courthouse, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109, and at Region I, 
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, 
Boston, Massachusetts, 02203 and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy 
of the proposed consent decree may be obtained in person or by mail 
from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check 
(there is a 25 cent per page reproduction cost) in the amount of $11.00 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Bruce S. Gelber,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-18477 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
No. 11-5752.

#### Arnulfo Betancort-Salazar, Petitioner v. Arkansas.

565 U.S. 950, 132 S. Ct. 414,

181 L. Ed. 2d 271,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7447.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.
# C_2013359EN.01001502.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

(Case T-462/13 R)

(Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery and the cancellation of any outstanding payments - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to show urgency)

2013/C 359/29

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, and Itelazpi, SA (Zamudio, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, M. Muñoz de Juan and N. Ruiz García, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky et P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2013) 3204 final of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-346-000]


Carnegie Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

July 14, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 8, 1998, Carnegie Interstate Pipeline 
Company (CIPCO) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to be effective 
August 1, 1998.

Second Revised Sheet No. 146

    CIPCO states that this filing is being made in compliance with 
Commission Order No. 587-G, issued by the Commission on April 16, 1998, 
Through this filing, CIPCO adopts by reference Version 1.2 of the GISB 
standards. CIPCO requests waiver of section 154.207 of the Commission's 
regulations to permit the tariff sheet to become effective on August 1, 
1998.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19193 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-10908.

#### Jorge Ornelas, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 856, 132 S. Ct. 188,

181 L. Ed. 2d 96,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5909.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 11-289.

#### John L. Cheek, Petitioner v. Suzanne Jennings, et al.

565 U.S. 964, 132 S. Ct. 465,

181 L. Ed. 2d 296,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7492.

October 17, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 26-Jan-23 EFFECTIVE DATE: 23-Feb-23 EFFECTIVE DATE: 23-Mar-23

ACTIVATION DATE: 8-Dec-22 ACTIVATION DATE: 5-Jan-23 ACTIVATION DATE: 2-Feb-23

SUBMISSION DATE: 8-Dec-22 SUBMISSION DATE: 5-Jan-23 SUBMISSION DATE: 2-Feb-23

EFFECTIVE DATE: 20-Apr-23 EFFECTIVE DATE: 18-May-23 EFFECTIVE DATE: 15-Jun-23

ACTIVATION DATE: 2-Mar-23 ACTIVATION DATE: 30-Mar-23 ACTIVATION DATE: 27-Apr-23

SUBMISSION DATE: 2-Mar-23 SUBMISSION DATE: 30-Mar-23 SUBMISSION DATE: 27-Apr-23

EFFECTIVE DATE: 13-Jul-23 EFFECTIVE DATE: 10-Aug-23 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07-Sep-23 & 05-Oct-23

ACTIVATION DATE: 25-May-23 ACTIVATION DATE: 22-Jun-23 ACTIVATION DATE: 20-Jul-23 & 17-Aug-23

SUBMISSION DATE: 25-May-23 SUBMISSION DATE: 22-Jun-23 SUBMISSION DATE: 20-Jul-23 & 17-Aug-23

EFFECTIVE DATE: 2-Nov-23 EFFECTIVE DATE: 30-Nov-23 EFFECTIVE DATE: 28-Dec-23

ACTIVATION DATE: 14-Sep-23 ACTIVATION DATE: 5-Oct-23 ACTIVATION DATE: 9-Nov-23

SUBMISSION DATE: 14-Sep-23 SUBMISSION DATE 5-Oct-23 SUBMISSION DATE: 9-Nov-23

2023

FLIGHT INFORMATION PUBLICATIONS (FLIPS) 

SUBSCRIPTION ACTIVATION SCHEDULE

23026 23054 23082

23306 23334 23362

23110 23138 23166

23194 23222 23250 & 23278

Prepared: 24 October 2022 by Julio Bultron/DLA Aviation 804-279-6500, DSN 312-695-6500

EFFECTIVE DATE: Product effective date

ACTIVATION DATE: Start of Subscription for Effective Date period 

SUBMISSION DATE: Automatic Distribution (AD) or Subscription changes have to be submitted to Mapping Customer Operations by this 

date to be included on the Effective Date.

**SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE**
Exhibit 10.2



ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST



WHEREAS, W. KEITH R. WATSON, a citizen of United Kingdom residing in Rosarito Beach, Baja California, Mexico, has developed a new molecule, employing combinations of
fluorochemicals with suitable emulsifying agents, that is stable at room temperatures and possesses enhanced oxygen carrying capacity and overcomes the toxic reaction problem in the use of synthetic phospholipids in substitute blood when
fluorochemicals are used, therefore making it useful in the synthesis of artificial blood,



AND WHEREAS, this new molecule is being readied for patent application in Mexico, the United States, and world wide,



THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, I do hereby assign to SINEQUONAN CORPORATION of New Jersey, all interests, rights, and ownership of this new molecule, and all improvements
made thereon, for Twelve Million Six Hundred & Eighty Thousand (12,680,000) shares of the stock of SINEQUONAN CORP., or not less that seventy-two (72%) per cent of the issued and outstanding stock after the above 12,680,000 shares are issued.



EXECUTED THIS 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1990, in Rosarito Beach, Baja California,
Mexico.



|         |  |               |  |         |  |                   
|-------- |  | ------------- |  | ------- |  | ------------------
|WITNESS: |  | /s/           |  | SIGNED: |  | /s/               
|         |  | ROBERT LARSON |  |         |  | W. KEITH R. WATSON
No. 11-5454.

#### William Herbert Villar, Petitioner v. Tony Patterson, Warden.

565 U.S. 908, 132 S. Ct. 314,

181 L. Ed. 2d 193,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5747.

October 3, 2011.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8202

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RONALD WAYNE LEWIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00104-JRS-1) 

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 23, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ronald Wayne Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Christopher 

Nunnally, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Ronald Wayne Lewis seeks to appeal from the district 

court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence in his 

criminal trial. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory 

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 

(1949). The order Lewis seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 

United States v. North Am. Coal Exch., 676 F.2d 99, 100 (4th 

Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny Lewis’ motions for appointment 

of counsel and for release on bail pending appeal and dismiss 

the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
No. 10-10835.

#### Heriberto Alvarez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 852, 132 S. Ct. 178,

181 L. Ed. 2d 89,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6075.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
FINANCE OFFICE POINT OF CONTACT (FOPOC)

SPECIAL OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT (SOE)

TAILORED LOGISTICS SUPPORT PROGRAM (TLSP)

In an effort to maximize support to our SOE customers, the following information is provided to assist with the 

ordering process.

Cost Recovery Rate (CRR)

Given the ever changing fiscal environment of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Construction & 

Equipment (C&E) Supply Chain at Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Troop Support has been actively working 

on ways to offer our valued customers a competitive Cost Recovery Rate (CRR) for their singular orders of 

significant dollar value that would enable them to maximize funding authority and obligations for critical 

mission requirements. C&E defines singular orders of significant dollar value as being above $5 million (total 

value unburdened, which is equivalent to $5.1 million burdened/Ext Price) submitted as one (1) stand-alone 

order request under the Tailored Logistics Support (TLS) Programs. In such instances, the C&E Supply Chain 

will now process applicable orders exceeding $5 million (total value unburdened) with a CRR of 2.0% in lieu of 

the standard 5.4% CRR for orders placed under the TLS Programs. The unburdened price is defined as the cost 

prior to the DLA CRR. The burdened price is the final cost to the customer as identified on the financial point 

of contact (FOPOC) spreadsheet; individual line item cost is identified under Unit Price (Column AC); and total 

cost for each line is identified under Ext Price (Column AD).

If an order request is competed and determined to be applicable, the request for funding will be sent to the 

customer’s designated FOPOC with the CRR of 2.0% included. However, it will not be awarded at that rate if 

the FOPOC response and funding is returned to DLA reducing lines or quantities bringing the total dollar value 

of the order below $5 million (total value unburdened, which is equivalent to below $5.1 million 

burdened/Confirmed Ext Price). In such cases, DLA will need to reprocess the order, coordinate with the 

vendor to confirm that there are no price changes, and will then return a new funding request to the customer’s 

FOPOC with the standard CRR of 5.4%. As needed, when lines or quantities are reduced, the designated 

Tailored Vendor Logistics Specialist (TVLS) can be contacted to confirm the total unburdened dollar value and 

applicable CRR prior to submitting funding. 

Please note the go live date for this process was December 14, 2018 and the CRR will be automatically selected 

based on the dollar value of stand-alone order requests.

For any questions regarding the FOPOC Review Process or the SOE program, please contact your 

designated TVLS or send your inquiry to SOEOrders@dla.mil.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03513

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
No. 11-6233.

#### Edward Anthony Throop, Petitioner v. Fernando Gonzalez, Warden.

565 U.S. 1016, 132 S. Ct. 554,

181 L. Ed. 2d 401,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8027.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 11-149.

#### Floyd P. Donley, Sr., Petitioner v. Allen Ordeneaux, III, et al.

565 U.S. 943, 132 S. Ct. 405,

181 L. Ed. 2d 258,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7344.

October 11, 2011.

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

*259Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 519.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R IC HARD SHUPE; M A R IA L. SHUPE,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. JPM OR GAN C HASE B A NK, N.A., De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-16241 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-00501-R C C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2016 ** B e fore : LEAVY, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. R ic ha rd an d M aria

L. Shupe a

ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in the ir a c tion a lle ging a viola tion of theTe le phone C onsum e r Prote c tion Ac t of 1991 (“ TC PA” ) and sta te la w c la im s. W e re vie w de novo . J ohnson v . Bay Are a Rapid Transit Dist. , 724 F.3d 1159, 1168 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED N OV 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C ontra ry to the Shupe s’ c onte ntion, C h a s e ’ s c a lls to c o lle c t on a de bt we re e xe m pt unde r the TC PA. S

e e 47 U.S.C . § 227(b)(1)(B ) (prohibiting the use of a n artific ia l or pre re c orde d voic e in a c a ll to a re side ntia l te l e phone line unle ss e xe m pte d by a rule or orde r of the Fe de ra l C om m unic ations C om

m ission); se e also In theMatte r of Rule

s & Re gulations Imple

me nting the

Te l. C onsume r Prot. Ac t of 1991 , R e port a

nd Orde r, 7 F.C .C . R c d. 8752, 8773 ¶ 39 (Oc t . 16, 1992) (deb t c olle c tion c a lls a

re “ c ove re d

by e xe m ptions . . . for c o m

m e rc ia l c a lls whic h do not transm it a n unsolic ite d a dve rtise m e nt” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing the Shupe s’ m otion for le ave to a

m e nd the ir c o m

pla int be c a

use the y fa ile d to de m onstra

te good c a

use . Se e J ohnson v . Mammoth Re c re ations, Inc . , 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th C ir. 1992) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand holding tha t a pa rty se e king a m e ndm e nt a fte r the d e a dline se t forth in thesc he duling orde r m ust de m onstra

te good c a

use , the foc u s of whic h is thedilige n c e of the m oving pa rty ). W e re je c t a s without me rit the Shupe s’ c o nte ntion tha t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to givethe m

an opportunity

to a uthe ntic ate e vide nc e the y subm itte d in support of the ir m o tion for sum m ary judgm e nt. W e do not c onside r doc um e nts not pre se nte d to thedistric t c ourt. Se e Unite d State s v . Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th C ir. 1990).
1 4 - 1 6 2 4 1 2W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a p pe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 6 2 4 1 3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3276 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3276

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to exclude authorized 
 generic drugs from calculation of the average manufacturer price for 
 purposes of the Medicaid drug rebate program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2019

Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. O'Halleran, Mr. Kinzinger, and Mr. Smith 
 of Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to exclude authorized 
 generic drugs from calculation of the average manufacturer price for 
 purposes of the Medicaid drug rebate program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Fair and Accurate Medicaid Pricing 
Act of 2019'' or the ``Fair AMP Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUDING AUTHORIZED GENERIC DRUGS FROM CALCULATION OF AVERAGE 
              MANUFACTURER PRICE UNDER THE MEDICAID DRUG REBATE 
              PROGRAM; EXCLUDING MANUFACTURERS FROM DEFINITION OF 
              WHOLESALER.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 1927(k)(1) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Inclusion'' 
        and inserting ``Exclusion'';
            (2) by striking ``a new drug application'' and inserting 
        ``the manufacturer's new drug application''; and
            (3) by striking ``inclusive'' and inserting ``exclusive''.
    (b) Excluding Manufacturers From Definition of Wholesaler.--Section 
1927(k)(11) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(11)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``manufacturers,''; and
            (2) by striking ``manufacturer's and''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the first day of the first fiscal quarter that begins after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-10823.

#### Wellela Hirpassa, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Brook T. Genet and for the Use of R. B., a Minor, and B. B., a Minor, Petitioner v. Prince George’s County, Maryland, et al.

565 U.S. 851, 132 S. Ct. 177,

181 L. Ed. 2d 88,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6421.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 406 Fed. Appx. 739.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      23,355,510
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,010,932
<PP&E>                                       2,264,340
<DEPRECIATION>                               (794,451)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,354,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,955,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       245,509
<OTHER-SE>                                  82,541,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,354,099
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,103,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,088,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,088,108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,088,018)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)


</TABLE>