alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Guaranty Contract
of Maximum Amount (the “Contract”) Entered into by and between BAK International
Limited and Longgang Branch, Shenzhen Development Bank (the “Creditor”) on
December 3rd, 2008

      


      Main
contents:

      Ø         
Guaranty Contract number: Shenfa Longgang Ebaozi 20081203001-1;

      Ø  Bak International Limited undertakes to
assume joint and several liabilities for Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the
“Obligor”)’s indebtedness towards Shenzhen Development Bank under the
Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (reference no.:
Shenfa Longgang Zongzi 20081203001) from December 8th, 2008
to December 8th, 2009,
and the maximum amount secured is RMB150 million.

      Ø  Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty
under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The
guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to
pay off the debt (including the creditor declares the debt becomes mature in
advance to its original expiry date due to default of the obligor or
the guarantor).

      Ø  Scope of Guaranty: The guaranty shall cover
all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract
compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation
cost, lawyer’s fee, notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is
incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditor’s right.

      Ø  Guaranty period: The
guaranty period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after
the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement
entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement.

      


      Headlines
of the articles omitted:

      Ø  Termination and explanation

      Ø  Payment on demand

      Ø  Declaration and guaranty

      Ø  Independent guaranty

      Ø  Fulfillment of the responsibility and giving
up of the right

      Ø  Amendment of Contract

      Ø  Effectiveness and Disputation
settlement

      Ø  Contract period

      Ø  Supplement articles
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 832 

Supporting the designation of September 13, 2022 as National Sepsis Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2022 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of September 13, 2022 as 

National Sepsis Day. 

Whereas sepsis is a medical condition caused by a severe immune response to infection or traumatic injury; 

Whereas the overwhelming flood of inflammatory signals released into the blood to fight infection can impair blood 

flow, injuring the body’s organs; 

Whereas sepsis is a serious infection and a leading cause of 

death and disability in the Unites States; 

Whereas severe sepsis can result in septic shock, exposing the 

patient to potentially fatal multiple organ failure; 

Whereas 1,700,000 people in the United States are infected 

by sepsis annually; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 832 ATS 

Whereas sepsis kills 270,000 people in the United States 

each year; 

Whereas sepsis is the most expensive condition treated in 

hospitals in the United States; 

Whereas the number of sepsis deaths is currently on the rise 

in the United States; 

Whereas according to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 80 percent of sepsis cases begin outside the 

hospital; 

Whereas most sepsis fatalities are preventable, and early recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of sepsis can prevent 

loss of life; 

Whereas the sepsis protocols for hospitals in New York State, 

called ‘‘Rory’s Regulations’’ for Rory Staunton who died 

from preventable, treatable sepsis at 12 years of age, 

have been proven to save lives through rapid identification and treatment of sepsis; 

Whereas providers and public health experts should study 

and learn from Rory’s Regulations to find ways to end 

preventable deaths from sepsis; and 

Whereas September 13, 2022, would be an appropriate date 

to designated as ‘‘National Sepsis Day’’ to coincide with 

the international designation of September 13 as ‘‘World 

Sepsis Day’’, to raise awareness of the condition, to encourage the education of patients, families, health care 

professionals, and government agencies on the seriousness sepsis and the importance of early detection as the 

key to survival, and to focus attention and energy towards the ultimate goal of ending sepsis: Now, therefore, 

be it 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 832 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation 

2 of September 13, 2022 as ‘‘National Sepsis Day’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Opinion filed May 25, 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 15

- 000 84

- CR

__________ HECTOR JOSE SUBIA , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 38 5 th District Court
Midland County , Texas
Trial Court Cause No . 42,618

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Hector Jose Subia of aggravated assault by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, aggravated assault of a peace officer by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, and burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit aggravated assault. The jury found two enhancement paragraphs to be true and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a fine of $5,000 for the
offense of aggravated assault by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, confinement
for eighty years and a $10,000 fine fo r the offense of aggravated assault of a peace
officer
, by usin g or exhibiting a deadly weapon , and confinement for sixty

- five years2

and a fine of $10,000 for the offense of burglary of a habitation with the intent to
commi t aggravated assault

. Appellant presents one point of error on appeal. In Appellant ’ s sole point of error, he argues that the trial c ourt erred when it
had him appear before the jury dressed in jail clothing during the punishment phase of trial. Appellant contends that Appellant’s appearance in jail clothes impermissibly infringed upon his presumption of innocence for the commission of the extraneous offenses presented and
, thus
, violated his due process right to a fair
trial. The State argues that Appellant has not pr eserved this point of error for appellate review. We agree with the State. When a trial court forces a defendant to appear at trial in jail clothes, it might thereby impinge upon the presumption of
innocence afforded to an accused. Calamaco v. State , 462 S.W.3d 587, 597 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2015, pet

. ref’d) (citing Lantrip v. State , 336 S.W.3d 343, 351 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2011, no pet.) ). However, a defendant who does not desire to

wear jail attir e must timely object. Id

. Appellant concedes that he did not at any time object to the clothing worn during t he punishment phase of trial. Further, there is no evidence in the record that suggests that the trial court forced Appellant to wear jail attire. Accordingly, Appellant has not preserved this point of error for our review. Appellant’s sole point of error is overruled. We affirm the judgment s of the trial court.

JIM R. WRIGHT
CHIEF JU STICE May 25 , 2017 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., W ill son , J ., and Bailey, J.
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WOODALL LAW OFFICES 

100 PINE STREET, SUITE 1250 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

TELEPHONE: (415) 413-4629 

FACSIMILE: (866) 937-4109 

KEVIN@KWOODALLLAW.COM 

KEVIN F. WOODALL, BAR NO. 180650 

BARNES LAW OFFICES 

580 CALIFORNIA ST., 16TH FLOOR 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 

TELEPHONE: (415) 231-6110 

FACSIMILE: (888) 415-0801 

PAGE@PBARNESLAW.COM 

PAGE R. BARNES, BAR NO. 153539 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, STARVONA HARRIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

STARVONA HARRIS AND JONATHAN

STRICKLAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON 

BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, 

 PLAINTIFFS, 

V. 

BEST BUY STORES, L.P., A LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, 

 DEFENDANT. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00446 HSG 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL;

[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

) 
1 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41, the parties hereby stipulate 

that the above-referenced action shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms in 

the executed Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff Harris’s 

Unopposed Motion for Approval of Private Attorneys General Act settlement. 

DATE: JUNE 11, 2019 

WOODALL LAW OFFICES 

BARNES LAW OFFICES 

BY: /S/KEVIN F. WOODALL

KEVIN F. WOODALL

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, STARVONA 

HARRIS

DATE: JUNE 11, 2019 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

BY: /S/ALEJANDRO DAVID 

SZWARCSZTEJN

ALEJANDRO DAVID SZWARCSZTEJN

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BEST BUY 

STORES, L.P. 
2 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ORDER 

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby dismisses the abovereferenced action with prejudice pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered by the 

parties and the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff Harris’s Unopposed Motion for Approval 

of Private Attorneys General Act settlement. 

Dated: U.S. District Court Judge 

6/18/2019
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 27, 2013

s1120 

# Order

Clerk November 27, 2013

147449

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIG AN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147449

COA: 311257

St. Clair CC: 86

- 128340

- FC

FREDERICK FREEMAN

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30 , 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted. While retaining jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals

shall then remand the case to the St. Clair Circuit Court, which shall conduct an

evidentiary hearing to determine whether the issue raised by the defendant merits the

relief requested. Upon making its findings, the St. Clair Circuit Court shall return t he

case to the Court of Appeals, which shall then review the lower court’s findings and

determine whether to affirm, reverse, or order other relief.

M C C ORMACK

, J., not participating because of her prior involvement in this case as

counsel for a party.
Isaiah R. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3716

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
K. F. T., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. G. M. H., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0497

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit
99.4
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-K/A of Laural
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended May 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert MacKay,
Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:
 
 1.    The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.     The
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 Date:   January 15,
2010
 
 ROBERT
MACKAY
 Robert
MacKay
 Chief
Accounting Officer
 Chief
Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 
 -1-
Form of certificate for the Company's Fixed Rate, Series 2009-SP



 Exhibit 4.2 
 

 







 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE NOT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, DEPOSITS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF A BANK AND ARE
NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. 
 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT HAVE NOT BEEN
REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), OR THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED, SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF EXCEPT WHILE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATING THERETO IS IN
EFFECT UNDER SUCH ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER SUCH ACT OR SUCH LAWS. EACH PURCHASER OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IS NOTIFIED THAT THE SELLER MAY BE RELYING ON THE
EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT PROVIDED BY RULE 144A THEREUNDER. ANY TRANSFEREE OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT BY ITS ACCEPTANCE HEREOF (1) REPRESENTS THAT IT IS A “QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER” (AS
DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT), (2) AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER, SELL OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT EXCEPT (A) PURSUANT TO A REGISTRATION STATEMENT WHICH IS THEN EFFECTIVE UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT, (B) FOR SO LONG AS THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RESALE PURSUANT TO RULE 144A, TO A PERSON IT REASONABLY BELIEVES IS A “QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER” AS DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT THAT PURCHASES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF A QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER TO WHOM NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE TRANSFER IS BEING MADE IN RELIANCE ON RULE 144A, (C) TO THE ISSUER OR (D) PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER
AVAILABLE EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT AND (3) AGREES THAT IT WILL GIVE TO EACH PERSON TO WHOM THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE TRANSFERRED A NOTICE SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE EFFECT OF THIS
LEGEND. 
 THIS INSTRUMENT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF A SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ISSUER OF
THESE SECURITIES AND THE INVESTOR REFERRED TO THEREIN, A COPY OF WHICH IS ON FILE WITH THE ISSUER. THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SAID AGREEMENT. ANY SALE OR OTHER
TRANSFER NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE VOID. 
 THE ISSUER WILL FURNISH TO ANY STOCKHOLDER, UPON REQUEST AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT
OF THE DESIGNATIONS, RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS AND SERIES AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED, INCLUDING THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT. 
 UST seq. #355
Dominick PELLETIER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9861.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# L_2018210EN.01000101.xml

| 21.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 210/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/1152

of 26 June 2018

on the signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People's Republic of China on certain aspects of air services

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.

| (2) | The Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Union an Agreement with the Government of the People's Republic of China on certain aspects of air services (‘the Agreement’). The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement on 8 December 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Union an Agreement with the Government of the People's Republic of China on certain aspects of air services (‘the Agreement’). The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement on 8 December 2017.

| (3) | The objective of the Agreement is to bring bilateral air services agreements between 27 Member States and the People's Republic of China in line with Union law. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The objective of the Agreement is to bring bilateral air services agreements between 27 Member States and the People's Republic of China in line with Union law.

| (4) | The Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People's Republic of China on certain aspects of air services (‘the Agreement’) is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 26 June 2018.

For the Council

The President

E. ZAHARIEVA

---
Tony HARRISON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1976

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus is denied.
OMB-17-08 ANNUAL REPORT

Fiscal Year: 2019

1 

General Report 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted one conference with expenditures greater than 

$100,000 this fiscal year. Conference sponsor included the Center for Drug Evaluation and 

Research (CDER) and Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Conference topics 

included the following: Navigating the World of Combination Products, Regulatory Highlights for 

Biosimilars and Interchangeables, Quality System Regulation and ISO 13485 Comparison: 

Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) Requirements and Building Quality Clinical Data into 

Premarket Approval Applications (PMAs). This course was designed to provide participants 

with a strong, foundation in understanding the FDA’s drug and medical device regulatory 

requirements. 

Narrative Report 

See below for a summation of all conference expenditures for FY 2019. 

Total Conference Expenses 

(in dollars) $138,479

Basic Information

Conference Title FDA Small Business Regulatory Education for 

Industry (REdI) Conference May 2019

Applicable Conference Type Scientific, FDA Hosted/Sponsored/Co-Sponsored

Conference Location Revere Hotel

Boston, Massachusetts

Conference Start Date Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Conference End Date Thursday, May 30, 2019
OMB-17-08 ANNUAL REPORT

Fiscal Year: 2019

2 

Cost and Attendee Information

Total agency cost of the 

conference 

$138,479

Total number of individuals 

whose travel expenses were 

paid by the agency

21

Explanation of how the conference advanced the mission of the agency

This conference advanced the mission of the FDA because the framework was designed 

to provide participants with a strong foundation in understanding the FDA’s drug and 

medical device regulatory requirements. Attendees left with a set of tools to assist in 

preparing regulatory filings and interacting with the FDA. FDA speakers were available to 

answer questions one-on-one at the end of each day.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SinoHub, Inc. (the “Company”)
for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Henry T. Cochran, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:





(1)
            The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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






Dated:
        April 30, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Henry T. CochranHenry
      T. CochranChief
      Executive Officer






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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AS INCLUDED IN THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     73,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,898
<PP&E>                                          36,961
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 496,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,098
<BONDS>                                        107,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     31,600
<COMMON>                                           798
<OTHER-SE>                                     240,103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   496,437
<SALES>                                         97,727
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,142
<CGS>                                           67,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,210
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     87
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
<FN>
<F1> REPRESENTS EPS-BASIC.
</FN>



        

</TABLE>