alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2 June 2008 ************************************* 

NSN: 8935-01-564-6097 (SCD) * MONOGRAPH NO: MCW/LRP 12 

 ************************************* 

Item: Seafood Chowder, Cooked, Dehydrated, Packaged in a Brickpack Pouch, Shelf Stable 

Document: PCR-S-017, Seafood Chowder, Cooked, Dehydrated, Packaged in a Brickpack 

Pouch, Shelf Stable 

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 548 cal for 

126 grams Component Classification: Primary 

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F 

Item Characteristics

Appearance: 

Dehydrated: A mixture of cooked clams, potatoes, Pacific shrimp and celery in a 

milk-based white sauce that has been dehydrated. Tan to light brown clam pieces, offwhite potato dices, light orange-pink Pacific shrimp, and light to medium green celery 

pieces are discernable. Free from glazed surface areas or dark colored cores. 

Rehydrated: A mixture of cooked clams, potatoes, Pacific shrimp and celery in a 

thick, milk-based white sauce typical of a product that has been frozen and reheated. 

Clams: Discernable pieces, tan to light brown color. 

Potatoes: Discernable dices, off white color. 

Shrimp: Identifiable, a light orange-pink with off-white color. 

Celery: Discernable pieces, light to medium green color. 

Sauce: Cream to off-white color, thick and smooth. 

Odor: Dehydrated: Cooked, dehydrated milk and potato with low to moderate seafood. 

Rehydrated: Moderate seafood, cooked milk and potato. 

Flavor: 

Dehydrated: N/A

Rehydrated: Moderate seafood, cooked milk and potato with a moderate flavor of 

blended salt, onion, celery, and spice. 

Texture: 

Dehydrated: Fully dehydrated, no soft or wet spots. 

Rehydrated: Fully rehydrates within ten minutes. 

Clams: Moderately chewy. 

Potatoes: Slightly soft to slightly firm. 

Shrimp: Tender and slightly fibrous. 

Sauce: Thick and creamy. 

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Dehydrated and rehydrated: Darkening or graying of sauce and potatoes. 

Loss of color in shrimp and celery. Rehydrated sauce pasty and extremely thick. 

Odor: Dehydrated and rehydrated: Old milk/dairy, burnt, cardboard, old fish. 

Flavor: 

Dehydrated and rehydrated: Old fish, burnt/scorched, old dairy, loss of herb, celery 

and onion flavor. 

Texture: Dehydrated: Hard or crystalline seafood pieces. 

Rehydrated: Tough or dry seafood, unrehydrated ingredients, very thick pasty sauce. 

1 
2 June 2008 ************************************* 

NSN: 8935-01-564-6097 (SCD) * MONOGRAPH NO: MCW/LRP 12 

 ************************************* 

2 

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

N/A 

Special Notes: Some ingredients such as potatoes may not be freeze dehydrated and will not easily 

crush into a powder or take several minutes longer to rehydrate. After rehydration time, however, there 

shall be no hard cores.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersignedPresident and Chief Executive Officer of Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

Date: June 14, 2007
|          | /s/ Timothy J. Dodd                       |   |
|----------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|     |                                      |
|     | Timothy J. Dodd                           |
| * * | *President and Chief   Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reward Enterprises,
  Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
  30, 2003, as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Quarterly Report), I, Edward Withrow, Chief Executive 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, that:

|1. | the Quarterly Report fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934; and                              
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                              
|2. | in information contained in the Quarterly
        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of the Company.

Date: December 18, 2003

/s/ Edward Withrow

Edward Withrow

Chief Executive Officer

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at Reward Enterprises, (Unaudited)
and the Consolidated Statement of Income for the six months ended December 31,
1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-3-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          33,367
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,367
<PP&E>                                          69,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,150
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,352
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (204)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,526)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,526)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .015
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .015


</TABLE>
The Ho norable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for th e 1 Distric t of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorabl e Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1418

___________ John Gregory Lambros, all American * citizens that were, are, or will be pre- * extradition detainees in Brazil due to * narcotic and similar drug charges, * * Appeal from the United States Appellants, * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * [UNPUBLISHED] Douglas R. Peterson; Janet Reno, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 22, 1997

Filed: December 29, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John Gregory Lambros a

ppeals from the district court’s dismissal of his action 1 brought pursuant

to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs an d the record, we conclude that the dismissal was proper-2-

an dthat an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, the judgment i s affirmed. See8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Lambros’s motions to supplement the record on appeal. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
##### 



SUBSIDIARIES OF NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC. (a California corporation)
 Name
    
    Jurisdiction of OrganizationNovellus Systems Export, Inc.
    
    BarbadosGaSonics World Trade Inc.
    
    BarbadosNovellus Systems International, LLC
    
    California, United StatesAngstron Systems, Inc.
    
    California, United StatesGamma Precision Technology
    
    California, United StatesSimation
    
    CanadaNovellus Systems International Holdings Ltd.
    
    Cayman IslandsNovellus Systems Semiconductor Equipment Shanghai Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaNovellus Systems International Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaNovellus Systems International Holdco, Inc.
    
    Delaware, United StatesSpeedFam-IPEC International Services, LLC
    
    Delaware, United StatesTmation Inc.
    
    Delaware, United StatesNovellus Development Company, LLC
    
    Delaware, United StatesNovellus Systems SARL
    
    FranceNovellus Systems GmbH
    
    GermanyPeter Wolters Verwaltungs GmbH
    
    GermanyNHL Sub GmbH
    
    GermanyPeter Wolters GmbH
    
    GermanyNovellus Systems (H.K.) Limited
    
    Hong KongPeter Wolters of America, Inc.
    
    Illinois, United StatesNovellus Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.
    
    IndiaNovellus Systems Ireland Ltd.
    
    IrelandGaSonics Ireland Ltd.
    
    IrelandNovellus Systems Israel Ltd.
    
    IsraelGaSonics Israel Ltd.
    
    IsraelNovellus Systems Italy SRL
    
    ItalyPeter Wolters Japan Co., Ltd.
    
    JapanNovellus Systems Japan, G.K.
    
    JapanSpeedFam IPEC (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaNovellus Systems (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaNovellus Systems BV
    
    NetherlandsNovellus Systems International BV
    
    NetherlandsVoumard, Inc.
    
    New York, United StatesNovellus Korea LLC
    
    Republic of South KoreaNovellus Systems International BV, Singapore Branch
    
    SingaporeNovellus Singapore Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeNovellus Singapore Holdings Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeNovellus Systems (Schweiz) Holding GmbH
    
    SwitzerlandVoumard Machines Co SARL
    
    SwitzerlandNovellus Systems (H.K.) Limited, Taiwan Branch
    
    TaiwanVoumard Limited
    
    United KingdomPeter Wolters UK Ltd.
    
    United KingdomNovellus Systems UK Limited
    
    United KingdomPeter Wolters Project UK Limited
    
    United Kingdom
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

GEORGE E. MICHAEL

v.

JUDITH STOCK

v.

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE

INSURANCE COMPANY AND EDWARD

J. MORRIS, ESQUIRE

v.

TOHICKON ABSTRACT COMPANY

PETITION OF: COMMONWEALTH LAND

TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND

EDWARD J. MORRIS, ESQUIRE :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 492 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

GEORGE E. MICHAEL

v.

JUDITH STOCK

v. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 493 MAL 2017

Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court[492 MAL 2017 and 493 MAL 2017] - 2

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE

INSURANCE COMPANY AND EDWARD

J. MORRIS, ESQUIRE

v.

TOHICKON ABSTRACT COMPANY

CROSS PETITION OF: JUDITH STOCK :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
Montana Twelfth Judicial District Court. County of Hill.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- SUSAN MARIE MAGERA, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-093

DECISION

On November 30, 2015, the Defendant’s suspended sentence was revoked and she was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a period of two (2) years, for the offense of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, a Felony. The Court recommended the Department of Corrections screen Defendant for placement in an appropriate treatment facility to address Defendant’s serious mental health issues as well as her chemical dependency issues. Defendant was ordered to pay all fines, costs, fees, and any other financial obligations ordered by the sentencing court in the original Judgment entered July 15, *292010. Defendant received credit for thirty-two (32) days previously served. Defendant did not receive any credit for street time. The sentence in DC-09-093 was ordered to run concurrently with the sentences in DC-09-091, DC-09-092, and DC-09-108.

Done in open Court this 8th day of April, 2016.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2016.

On April 8, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Peter Ohman, of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. §1350**

In connection with the quarterlyreport of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, William B. Olson,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates andfor the periods indicated. 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission forpurposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. 

Date: March 10, 2006
## iWOTXoM FAR £M B>ftAlg-^co/vlC^]>^flT^^ Ho. C8-lfe- 000^9 -CV Om^ or APfeAlS t>g>tU^ cx,a& -z-e-to Ge^-U j^ Ijj.g, CjuUiA-e^oy, I/, 

### ^covsS1&&A.0M on ; saWvv ^^ ^^ *3a*NP* Uct\N\ 3bK&M^^ ^received\ OCT 1 0 2018 JHIRDCOURTOFAPPEALSy

### 3.^1^ C^uvf^ op\^«m u^lV cxec&e c&^wtf*^
<5

### ctp/vese/vNi-w-eol-" fe4«.t;\£vY\e/*vir c^Wa^>o HK\/\ 

### Rale 32^Q>), ^KP'ves*!*} fe^utAcVi* ^^^5 §o
$one*r{



## \a /18l b^-f&*Texas* Su.p/u?w<2 U4^.&ec;i *^*W

i/, W\^A.ccu^^\g fvta.-v'A. Banvc 703 5iO. M> 3£~£ 

# i9r^>uDX-V-V C?7I ^-^. gj£ 31 CTeyO l^^). 

### CoolaV pr\<e.<L,e<$e>vcU ^n Si-rig ck-fc>e-cA ,t^ CsuaV YY\oV©<A <WciJ ^^^^U\ V£ S-S-V £,D/Vf&\ ^GLC^-S oA\ck, jp. -^ruxe, ui
o^V4 f\^_9«v.V-e \<\ Ve^^Vv oaa4 fiTLCenrcCousW 

### dg_c^v\( \-W S<ukj(*JV-e>vwe Gata.^4-^ 7A .H-e^A^ ^ -to

+&**." 1^1 o^e^l «*wU Vo (U*e 3>aqCb)

S"ll,0'3. ^

### Foa i-V^«s< r^ds&^s^ tOc^i^^A f\e<?u,^s-f^

Fi^O SB -*•( 5-3^077 

### t^*s -s*^ v/ia. as. yvw<1 Vo ScLoit x-*\\o£ji*o 

### 6<?-^oe clV 9.0, Sox 17H-8 , Au^fC^ V* -7?7<5? 17fO-7-lt 

### Re*. 103 "lip- 000<?7~CV C/i &av\c_ K-e co^s.'fea^^. /}- Copy lus k-ee^
^r<:7£o7 7
^RECEIVED\ OCT 1 0 2016 vTWRDCOURTOFAPPEALS

\ JEFFREVqKY|F ^?87i i— 2=?4747

AUSTIK TX -7537 RIO GRANDE DISTRICT 07 OCT 20X6 FM 4 L USA ,|„l,IJ.,l|.|l|l|//ll.|.M|j»||»l«»J»l/'l'/||||'ll'J'"H,l,l
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10888

**Marsha Jackson,**
Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**City of Dallas,**
Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CV

- 967

Before **Clement, Graves** , and **Costa** , Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * After an illegal shingle recycling facility operated on an industrially zoned lot next to her home, Marsha Jackson brought an equal protection claim against the City of Dallas for its alleged racially discriminatory zoning scheme

. The district court dismis sed Jackson’s claim pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978) because Jackson failed to

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 15, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10888 Document: 00516357822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2022No. 21

- 10888

2 plausibly allege the City’s zoning policy was the moving force behind the illegal shingle operation. Specifically, because Jackson allege d the shingle operation violated the City’s zoning policy and the deed restrictions the City placed on the lot , the district court concluded there was not a plausible causal connection between the policy and the alleged constitutional violation. See M ason v. Lafayette City

- Par. Consol. Gov ’ t , 806 F.3d 268, 280 (5th Cir. 2015) (“ The ‘ moving force ’ inquiry imposes a causation standard higher than ‘ but for ’ causation. ” (citation omitted)). Having reviewed Jackson’s allegations de novo, we conclude there is no reversible error in the district court’s analysis

. And much of Jackson’s argument in this court focuses on a theory of discrimination

— that the City’s initial decision to zone the land for industrial use was racially motivated

— that was not advanced in the district

court and is thus forfeited. Accordingly, we **AFFIRM**

. Case: 21-10888 Document: 00516357822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
No. 09-8699.

#### Steven W. Doane, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1015, 130 S. Ct. 1901,

176 L. Ed. 2d 379,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2712.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-7090.

#### Frank Boatswain, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1072, 132 S. Ct. 793,

181 L. Ed. 2d 507,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8369.

November 28, 2011.

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

E.B.

Petitioner

NMCCA No. 201800325

PETITION FOR 

EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF –

ARTICLE 6B, UCMJ

Special Panel 2

ORDER

Granting Motion for Leave to 

File, Denying Motion to Dismiss, 

and Denying Petition for 

Extraordinary Relief and 

Application for Stay of 

Proceedings

UNITED STATES

Respondent

Salvador JACINTO

Aviation Structural Mechanic 

First Class (E-6)

U.S. Navy

Real Party in Interest

On 17 March 2022, E.B. filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus to Enforce Article 6b, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice [UCMJ],1 and an Application for Stay of Proceedings. On the same day, 

in response to E.B.’s filing, the Real Party in Interest filed a Motion for Leave 

to File and a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 17th day of March 2022,

ORDERED:

1. That E.B.’s Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of 

Mandamus to Enforce Article 6b, UCMJ, is DENIED.

2. That E.B.’s Application for a Stay of Proceedings is DENIED.

3. That the Real Party in Interest’s Motion for Leave to File is GRANTED.

4. That the Real Party in Interest’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is DENIED.

 

1 10 U.S.C. § 806b.
2

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

Copy to:

Petitioner (LT Hough)

45 (LCDR Wester)

46 (Maj Wiggins, Maj Friedewald)

DuBay Judge (CDR Sears)

02
No. 09-8601.

#### Wainsworth Marcellus Hall, Petitioner v. United States.

558 U.S. 996, 130 S. Ct. 1747,

176 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2333.

March 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 334 Fed. Appx. 540.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 3, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 3, 1998 (UNAUDITED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
CONTAINED IN FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 3, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001067354
<NAME> FANTASMA, LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                       432
<INVENTORY>                                      2,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,323
<PP&E>                                              27
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,181
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,846
<SALES>                                          8,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,455
<CGS>                                            5,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 302
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (744)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (744)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>