alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This certification is furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A (the “Form 10-K/A”) for the year ended December 31, 2016 of Empire Resources, Inc. (the “Company”).
I, Sandra Kahn, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in this report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 28, 2017



| | By:    | /s/ Sandra Kahn                                                          
| | ------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name:  | Sandra Kahn                                                              
| | Title: | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
(Principal Financial Officer)



The foregoing certification is being furnished
as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly,
is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K/A for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
any general incorporation language in such filing.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

# **CERTIFICATIONBY THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Visant Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc L. Reisch, the President and ChiefExecutive 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)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 13, 2007 |     | /s/ Marc L.  Reisch            |
|-----------------------|----------|--------------------------------|
|                  |     | Marc L. Reisch                 |
|                  | * * | *President  and*               |
|                  | * * | *Chief  Executive Officer*     |
|                  |     | (principal executive  officer) |

 

----
#### Patricia Kelly et al., Respondents, v Michele Maniscalco et al., Defendants, and Frances M. Forgione et al., Appellants.

[800 NYS2d 847]

*997In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, the defendants Frances M. Forgione and Forgione Financial Services, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated September 17, 2003, as denied those branches of their motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first, second, and sixth causes of action of the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss so much of an amended complaint as alleged breach of fiduciary duty as against them. The court properly found, inter alia, that such allegations related back to the original complaint and, therefore, were timely interposed *(see*CPLR 203 [f]).

The plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud as against the appellants were adequate and were stated with sufficient particularity *(see*CPLR 3016 [b]; *Houbigant, Inc. v Deloitte & Touche,*303 AD2d 92 [2003]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit *(see Lavin v Kaufman, Greenhut, Lebowitz & Forman,*226 AD2d 107 [1996]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellant,

v.

ISO

- DIAGNOSTICS TESTING, INC. a/a/o GERARDO GONZALEZ , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20 22

- 2475

[ January 31, 2024 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Kathleen McHugh , Judge; L.T. Case No. COCE21

- 29607

.
Lissette Gonzalez and Francesca M. Stein of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Mac S. Phillips of Phillips | Tadros, P.A., Fo rt Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company
, appeals a judgment in favor of a medical provider
, ISO

- D iagnostics Testing, Inc. ( “ ISO ” ) , for PIP benefits. The trial court ruled in ISO ’s favor on its claim that
, pursuant to the policy
, United owed additional PIP payments because United had improperly paid ISO based on the 2017 Medicare Schedule of Payments
, rather than the higher 2018 schedule

. We have recently decided this exact issue involvi ng a United PIP policy with the s imilar relevant policy language against the same provider in United Automobile Insurance Co

. vs. ISO

- Diagnostics Testing, Inc., a/a/o Suryma Pineiro Morales
, No. 4D2022

- 1735
, --- So. 3d

--- , 2024 WL 103664 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan

. 10, 2024)

. We reversed the judgment for ISO and held that “under the plain meaning of the policy and the statute, whether pre

- or post

- amendment [of the statute], the definition of a ‘ year ’ meant a service year governing the payout at issue.” Id. at *2.

Based upon our prior opinion, we also reverse the final judgment for ISO in this case and remand for entry of judgment for United.

Reversed.2 W ARNER , C IKLIN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS 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 National Beef Packing Company, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 29, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jay D. Nielsen, Chief Financial 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
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



By:

/s/ JAY D. NIELSENJay D. Nielsen Chief Financial Officer




Date: July 13, 2004
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 May 12, 2008/s/  Frederic H. Moll, M.DChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
STATE v. Willie James WILDER, Jr.

No. 503P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 16, 2005.

Amanda P. Little, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of September 2005 by Defendant to be allowed to withdraw petition for discretionary review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of September 2005."
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The followingcertification accompanies the issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2006, and is not filed, as provided in Release33-8212, 34-47551.

In connection withthe accompanying Quarterly Report of Treaty Oak Bancorp, Inc. (“Treaty Oak”)on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jeffrey L. Nash, President and Chief Executive Officer of Treaty Oak, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Treaty Oak.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TreatyOak and will be retained by Treaty Oak and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Dated: August 17, 2006 |                                  |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                   |                                  |
|                   |                                  |
|                   | /s/ Jeffrey L. Nash                   |   |
|                   | Jeffrey L. Nash                       |
|                   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1(b)



                            [ELLEN TRACY LETTERHEAD]


February 27th, 1998


Mr. Barry Tartarkin
Ridgeview Inc.
1489 West Palmetto Park Road
Suite 410
Boca Raton, Florida 33486

Dear Barry,

This letter confirms our intention to renew the Ellen Tracy license for the next
three years, through December 31st, 2000. At the present time a contract is
being drafted, and Ridgeview is authorized to sell Ellen Tracy women's legwear
under conditions of our previous agreement.

If there are any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,


/s/ Howard Rosenberger

Howard Rosenberger
Executive Vice President
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors

AMERISAFE, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statements No. 333-129980 pertaining to the 2005 Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Plan and No. 333-129982 pertaining to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan of AMERISAFE, Inc. of our reports dated March 9,
2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of AMERISAFE, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of AMERISAFE, Inc. as of December 31, 2008, included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.



|                       |  |  |  |                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|                       |  |  |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                       |  | 
|New Orleans, Louisiana |  |  |  |                      
|March 9, 2008          |  |  |  |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DANIEL M. WOODS

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§

§ No. 64, 2020

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No s

. 1701019682,

§ 1702009077, 1702009428 (N)

§

§

Submitted: April 17, 2020

Decided: June 17 , 2020

Corrected: June 29 , 2020

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN , Justices.

ORDE R

A fter careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 1 and the record on appeal

, we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirm ed on the basis of and for the reasons

assigned by the Superior Court in its January 29, 2020 Order denying the appellant’s

first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 2

NOW, T HEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court

is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

1 The appellant’s motion to strike the appellee’s answering brief based on minor mistakes in the Table

of Citations is denied

. 2 State v. Woods

, 2020 WL 491187 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2020).
86 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

General Atomic Technologies $12.7 M

Summit Technical Solutions $12.2 M

Dakco Distributors $9.4 M

Pro-Mark Services $9.4 M

Sygnos Inc. $7.2 M

United Crane & Excavation $7.0 M

Earthmovers Inc. $5.6 M

Johnson Controls $5.2 M

US Foods Holding $4.4 M

Mowa-Barlovento JV-A $3.7 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

NORTH DAKOTA

#45 #31 0.2% $1,028 #49 #39 #39

$0.8 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.4% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

13,489 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$0.6 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$626.8 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

13,489

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Ward 5,668 683 289 20 6,660

Grand Forks 1,629 363 301 39 2,332

Cass 29 295 1,550 205 2,079

Burleigh ND 268 927 52

Ramsey ND 51 325 ND

Richland ND ND 146 52

Barnes ND 19 94 ND

Stutsman ND ND 91 ND

Stark ND ND 74 ND

LaMoure ND ND 61 ND

Construction: 11%

Research and

Development: 0%

Service: 70%

Supplies and

Equipment: 19%

Active Duty: 55%

Civilian: 13%

National 

Guard: 30%

Reserve: 3%

17%

2%

60%

21%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

27%

1%

72%

0%

$0.2

$0.4

$0.2

$0.3

$0.1

$0.2 $0.2 $0.2

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 87

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Pembina

Ward Ramsey

Benson

Grand Forks

Burleigh Cass

LaMoure

Sioux Dickey

NORTH DAKOTA FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Ward

Grand Forks

Pembina

Cass

Sioux

Burleigh

LaMoure

Ramsey

Benson

Dickey

(M = millions)

$73.7 M

$44.6 M

$17.8 M

$7.0 M

$3.5 M

$3.2 M

$2.2 M

$704.7 K

$571.1 K

$523.3 K

Ward

Grand Forks

Cass

Burleigh

Ramsey

McLean

Barnes

Pembina

Richland

Stutsman

$367.5 M

$120.6 M

$63.5 M

$46.4 M

$10.8 M

$5.3 M

$3.2 M

$2.2 M

$2.1 M

$1.3 M

Ward Ramsey

McLean

Stutsman Barnes Cass

Richland

Pembina

Grand Forks

Burleigh
STENGER v. SPAGNOLI.

No. COA04-1402.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
NEW JERSEY 

#20

$8.4 B SPENT IN 

STATE 

#40

1.3% OF STATE GDP

1.4%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

$948

PER RESIDENT 

#20

$6.4 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING 

#24

34,462 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL 

#22

$2.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 2% Research and

Development: 12%

Service: 25%

Supplies and

Equipment: 61%

By Service 

Army

24%

Navy/Marines

35%

Air Force

9%

Other Defense

32%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 25% Active Duty: 19%

National Civilian: 32%

Guard: 25%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

47%

Navy/Marines

17%

Air Force

34%

Other Defense

2%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions)

Lockheed Martin $1.7 B

SAIC $522.5 M

L3Harris Technologies $456.0 M

Arctic Slope Regional Corp. $433.8 M

TransDigm Group $245.2 M

AASKI Technology $227.4 M

BAE Systems $106.8 M

Advanced Sciences and Technologies $74.6 M

Brighton Cromwell $62.6 M

Sea Box Inc. $62.1 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$6.7 $6.4

$5.6 $5.2 $4.9 $5.0 $4.6

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

$4.6

FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$2.0 BILLION 34,462

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Burlington 5,558 2,908 1,727

Morris 130 4,447 654

Ocean 280 2,254 693

Atlantic ND 332 1,358

Monmouth 282 330 664

Bergen 59 30 471

Camden 44 60 284

Hudson 12 97 291

Mercer 15 76 196

Essex ND 30 429

Reserve Total

6,814 17,007

299 5,530

18 3,245

98 ND

461 1,737

110 670

253 641

180 580

197 484

0 ND

78 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 79

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

NEW JERSEY FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Burlington

Morris

Essex

Passaic

Camden

Monmouth

Bergen

Union

Middlesex

Somerset

(M = millions)

$2.6 B

$820.5 M

$620.8 M

$446.0 M

$416.4 M

$400.4 M

$159.1 M

$154.7 M

$153.0 M

$137.7 M

Burlington

Morris

Ocean

Monmouth

Atlantic

Camden

Bergen

Mercer

Hudson

Middlesex

$872.1 M

$531.8 M

$268.9 M

$78.3 M

$57.7 M

$21.9 M

$19.9 M

$18.9 M

$17.4 M

$14.6 M

Passaic

Bergen

Morris

Morris

Essex

Bergen

Somerset

Monmouth

Middlesex

Camden

Burlington

Union

Middlesex

Camden

Burlington

Ocean

Atlantic

Mercer

Hudson

Monmouth
PERIGEAN-SPRING TIDE

oceanservice.noaa.gov

moon’s monthly 

orbit around Earth

A perigean spring tide occurs when the moon is 

either new or full and closest to Earth.

Moon closest to Earth in 

monthly orbit (perigee)

Moon in alignment with sun

Earth between moon and sun

Earth’s yearly 

orbit around sun

moon’s monthly 

orbit around Earth

Earth’s yearly 

orbit around sun

new

moon

full

moon

Moon closest to Earth in 

monthly orbit (perigee)

Moon in alignment with sun

Moon between Earth and sun

NEW MOON

FULL MOON

Not to scale.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


         The undersigned officer of Empire Resources, Inc. (the "Company")
hereby certifies that this Amendment No. 1 to the Company's annual report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report
or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.




Date:  April 12, 2005                By:  /s/ Sandra Kahn
                                          ----------------------------
                                              Sandra Kahn,
                                              Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              23
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                        76
<INVENTORY>                                      1,437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,265
<PP&E>                                           1,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                     602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,105
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,456
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,728)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,871
<SALES>                                          7,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,244
<CGS>                                            4,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (100)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,352
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,352
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,357
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    253
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,962
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.36)
        

</TABLE>