alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 of Somerset International Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the twelve months ending December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John X.
Adiletta, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
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; and

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


                                           /s/ John X. Adiletta
                                          --------------------------------
                                               John X. Adiletta
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer



Dated: March 31, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 1 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 2 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 3 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 4 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 5 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 6 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 7 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 8 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 9 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 10 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 11 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 12 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 13 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC     Document 1      Filed 04/25/2007     Page 14 of 14
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Manuel ROMERO-CORRALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-51057.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jaime Manuel Romero-Corrales raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69185-69186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22534]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10176 and <greek-i> 10177]


LOUISIANA Disaster Number LA-00002

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1603-DR), dated 08/29/
2005.

[[Page 69186]]

    Incident: Hurricane Katrina.
    Incident Period: 08/29/2005 and continuing through 11/01/2005.
    Effective Date: 11/01/2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/11/2006.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/29/2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, National Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 
Kingsport Road, Fort Worth , TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated 08/29/2005, is hereby 
amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 
08/29/2005 and continuing through 11/01/2005.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Cheri L. Cannon,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-22534 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed July 25, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-13-00020-CR STEPHEN LEN HEJNY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12-58342-S


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Bridges Stephen Len Hejny appeals follow ing his conviction for theft. In a single i ssue, appellant contends the judgment should be modified to refl ect he entered an “open” plea of guilty. The State agrees the judgment should be modified as appellant asks. We m odify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified. Appellant waived a jury, entered an open guilt y plea to theft of prope rty valued at $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, and true to two e nhancement paragraphs alleging prior state jail felony convictions. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. §§ 31.03(a), (e)(4), 31.07( b), 32.31(d) (West‐ 2 ‐ 2011 & Supp. 2013). After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment at five years’ imprisonment. The judgment states there were terms of a plea bargain agreement. Additionally, the judgment indicates no plea or finding on the seco nd enhancement paragraph. Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant’s sole issue. We modify the judgment to show: (1) the term s of plea bargain were “open;” (2) the plea to second enhancement paragraph is true; and (3) the finding on the second enhancement paragraph is true. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). As modifie d, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 130020F.U05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE‐ 3 ‐ 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

STEPHEN LEN HEJNY, Appellant

No. 05-13-00020-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12-58342-S). Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices Francis and Lang-Miers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED to show: The section entitled “Terms of Plea Barg ain” is modified to show “Open.”

The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragra ph” is modified to show “True.” The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancem ent/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show “True.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered July 25, 2014
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Sparta, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1032

Issued: September 6, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On July 28, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a January 12, 2022 nonmerit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-1032.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the January 12, 2022 decision was July 11, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until July 28, 2023, more than 180 days after the

January 12, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-1032 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-1032, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-1032 is dismissed.

Issued: September 6, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          79,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  276,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,109
<INVENTORY>                                    265,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               598,964
<PP&E>                                       3,252,509
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,151,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 699,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,430,591
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,400,000
<COMMON>                                        61,674
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,341,139)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   699,597
<SALES>                                      2,025,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,025,938
<CGS>                                          831,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,366,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,944)<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                315,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (315,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (315,604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES GAIN FROM SALE OF ASSET OF $4,090 AND FOREIGN CURRENCY LOSS 
OF $146.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. WOOTEN

No. 151 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 652.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1973.
* Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of

this case. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1061

BELL ATLANTIC-WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SYED H. (NAYYAR) ZAIDI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-467-A)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,* Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Syed H. (Nayyar) Zaidi, Appellant Pro Se. Betty S.W. Graumlich,

John Lyons Marshall, Jr., MCSWEENEY, BURTCH & CRUMP, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment to the Plaintiffs in their civil action and dismissing

Appellant's counterclaims. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bell Atlantic DC v.

Zaidi, No. CA-97-467-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 1997). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5627 

To amend the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act to assist small 

business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. FILNER, Ms. NORTON, Ms. CORRINE BROWN

of Florida, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr. CUMMINGS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on 

Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment 

Act to assist small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commerce for Defend5 ers Act of 2010’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5627 IH

1 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND CON2 TROLLED BY VETERANS. 

3 Title IV of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employ4 ment Act (Public Law 111–147) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘Subtitle F—Small Business Con7 cerns Owned and Controlled by 

8 Veterans 

9 ‘‘SEC. 461. SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND CON10 TROLLED BY VETERANS. 

11 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the awarding of contracts 

12 and subcontracts using amounts made available under ti13 tles I, III, and V of SAFETEA–LU (Public Law 109– 

14 59), subtitles A and C of this title, and section 403 of 

15 title 23, United States Code, a preference shall be given 

16 to the use of small business concerns owned and controlled 

17 by veterans. 

18 ‘‘(b) ELIGIBILITY.—A small business concern owned 

19 and controlled by veterans shall be eligible for the pref20 erence under subsection (a) if such concern is listed in 

21 the database maintained pursuant to section 8127(f) of 

22 title 38, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
In the Senate of the United States, 

July 27, 2010. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 5610) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide a technical adjustment with respect to funding for independent living centers under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in order to ensure 

stability for such centers.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

In section 2(a)(2)(A), strike øJuly 30¿ and insert 

August 5 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 5610 

AMENDMENT
#### STATE v. DENTON

No. 73 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 684.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 June 1973.
# C_2007301EN.01000901.xml

| 13.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4948 — 3i Group/Global Garden Products)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 301/04)

On 5 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4948. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4948. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: George Wood v. Matthew D. Wiggins, Jr.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00630-CV

Trial court case number: 11-CV-0336

Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County

The motion for rehearing is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Amparo Guerra

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guerra.

Date: March 10, 2022
#### ANDREW WENTWORTH GATES, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8068

November 21, 1975

542 P.2d 736

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Stephen L. Huf-faker*and *Herbert F. Ahlswede,*Deputy Public Defenders, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George Holt,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this appeal, Andrew Wentworth Gates contends that the capital murder statute under which he was charged is unconstitutional because of vagueness,1 and he further challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to hold him for trial on a capital murder charge. We reject both contentions.

Appellant’s constitutional challenge was considered and *754rejected by this court in Sheriff v. Smith, 91 Nev. 729, 542 P.2d 440 (1975). In our view, the quantum and quality of the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination justified the magistrate’s order holding the appellant for trial. NRS 171.206. State v. Fuchs, 78 Nev. 63, 368 P.2d 869 (1962); Ervin v. Leypoldt, 76 Nev. 297, 352 P.2d 718 (1960); Raggio v. Bryan, 76 Nev. 1, 348 P.2d 156 (1960); Ex parte Liotard, 47 Nev. 169, 217 P. 960 (1923); In re Kelly, 28 Nev. 491, 83. P. 223 (1905).

The order of the district court denying appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is affirmed.

1

NRS 200.030, subsection 1(e), as amended, Stats. Nev. 1973, ch. 798, § 5, at 1803:

> “1. Capital murder is murder which is perpetrated by:

> “(e) Killing more than one person as the result of a common plan, scheme or design.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 27(b)


The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 1997 and the Consolidated Statement
of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the three months
ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>    0000052485
<NAME>   IES UTILITIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,350,093
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     71,852
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         137,544
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        10,808
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 196,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,766,393
<COMMON>                                        33,427
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      279,042
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            228,959
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 541,428
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,320
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           462,389
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 126,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   63,140
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     17,421
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                14,047
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 523,648
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,766,393
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      226,398
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             9,245<F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     193,810
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     193,810<F1>
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         32,588
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 814
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  33,402
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        12,306
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,851
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        229
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   11,622
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        14,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       38,631
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          65,607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Income tax expense is not included in Operating Expense in the Consolidated
Statements of Income for IES Utilities Inc.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>