alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


<TABLE>


                                                             Exhibit 11


                                  KOLLMORGEN CORPORATION
                              COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
           (Amounts in thousands, except share and per share amounts)
                                 (unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                             For the                   For the
                                        Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                          September 30,               September 30, 
                                            ---------------------    ----------------------
<S>                           <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>       
                                 1997       1996       1997       1996    
                              ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Net income                    $   2,067  $   1,804  $  19,536     $ 5,681 
     
Less preferred stock dividends
     and accretion of discount        0          0          0        (285)
                              ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Earnings applicable to 
     primary common shares        2,067      1,804      19,536      5,396 

Number of shares:
  Weighted average number 
     of shares outstanding
      - Primary               10,464,567 10,044,000 10,290,920  10,036,000

  Weighted average number of 
     of shares outstanding
      - Fully diluted         10,512,990 10,056,000 10,443,892  10,082,000
                              ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Earnings per common share:
  Primary                       $  0.20    $  0.18    $  1.90     $  0.54 
                                ========   ========   ========    ========
  Fully diluted                 $  0.20    $  0.18    $  1.87     $  0.54 
                                ========   ========   ========    ========




<FN>
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.  
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7068

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MOHAMMAD ASHRAF MOHAMMAD-OMAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00425-CMH-3; 1:10-cv-01112-CMH)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mohammad Ashraf Mohammad-Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence 

Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mohammad Ashraf Mohammad-Omar seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying him leave to amend his previously 

denied 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Mohammad-Omar has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-03408-DLC Document 7 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03408-DLC Document 7 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136814 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

## Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices



## v SC: 136814 COA: 276488 Midland CC: 06-002935-FH KIRK BRYAN WHYTE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 26 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 26 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Jackpot's
Consolidated Balance Sheets - June 30, 1998 and 1997 and its Consolidated
Statements of Income - years ended June 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          50,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,094
<PP&E>                                          35,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,013
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,881
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,668
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00237-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Manuel CARDENAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 428298

Honorable Robert Behrens, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2015

DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is granted, and this appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
"_ _-.- -. -- " -A-._-_A-.... .-- -1. ---'- 't \ r. -- ~ ~ 

: ,, . \.. r s :,.-I){, :,;..:.LJ::. ! :. 

i. 

:- '- : : 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK . . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

IN RE: 

i MASTER FILE 

FOSAMAX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

i I :06-MD-I 789 (SFK) 

Tliis Dorrl~nor~ Hclilres To ,411 Actiolis 

CASE MANAGEblENT ORDER NO. 14 

(Regarding Motions to Remand) 

SOHN F. KEENAh1, Unitcd States 1)istricl .ludgc: 

It has beconic apparent that motions to remand \\zl~icli wcre filed in transfcror 

courts and rcmain pending belorc this Court. as well as thosc which are expcctcd to be filed in 

this Court. \rill raise overlapping challenges to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. In ordcr 

to resolve thcse jurisdiclional issues promptly and efficiently, it is hcreby ORDERED (hat: 

1. For cases transrerrcd to this Cou~t on or heforc March 1, 2008: All remand 

motions shall be served on the Defendant by March 31. 2008. DeTendant shall sen-c its responsc 

to thcse remand motions on or before April 21, 2008. Plaintiffs may servc a reply on or before 

May 2, 2008. On May 2, 2008, cach party shall file its molion papers and provide the Court 

\\it11 courtesy copies. Defendant also shall file on tlic master docket a list of all cascs with 

rcmand motions pending as of that datc. 

2. For cases transfcrred to this Court aftcr March 1, 2008: On thc last business 

day of Junc 2008 and aery sccond month thereafter, DeTendant shall notify thc Court of any 

ne\v remand motions that have been filed. Defcndant shall file and selvc papers in opposition 

thcreto within fourtecn days. PlaintiSfs affected by such motions may scrve and file rcply 

papers. and provide the Court with courtesy copies ofthcir motion papers, within fourteen days 

thereafter. 

SO ORDERED 

Daled: Ncw York. N.Y. 

Decenlbcr z./ , 200? 

- 

United States District Judse 

Case 1:07-cv-03465-JFK Document 19 Filed 12/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4




                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated April 23, 1998 covering the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Visibility Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the
years ended December 31, 1997 and 1996, in this Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1997 into Intelligent Systems Corporation's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 33-99432 and No. 333-32157).



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP




Boston, Massachusetts
May 15, 1998
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 3 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 4 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 5 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 6 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 7 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 8 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 9 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 10 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 11 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 12 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 13 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 14 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 15 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 16 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 17 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 18 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 19 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 20 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 21 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 22 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 23 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 24 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 25 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 26 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 27 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 28 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 29 of 30
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 30 of 30
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15102-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14937-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Unassociated Document








MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT









 

WHEREAS, OxySure Systems, Inc. ("OxySure") and Julian T. Ross ("Ross") (OxySure and Ross jointly, the "Parties") entered into that certain Employment Agreement ("Agreement") dated January 15,2009; and





WHEREAS, The Parties have agreed that it is in their best interests to modify the terms of the Agreement,

 

NOW, WHEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

 

Exhibit A, Section 2(a) - "Base Salary" shall be amended, and Exhibit A, Section 2(a) shall read as follows:





(2) Salary, Bonus and Benefits

 

(a) Base Salary: For a period commencing on the date of signature of this amendment, and continuing until Ross, in his sole discretion shall determine, Base Salary shall be zero. In exchange, OxySure is to issue Ross or his nominee(s)
a Senior Note in the amount of $ 15,000 for every month of salary exchanged, plus 7,000 penny warrants for every month of salary exchanged.

 

 

All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged. 

 

Agreed to and accepted;





 



	 	 	 	 	 
	
By: /s/   
	 	 	
By:  /s/   
	 
	
Mr.Don Reed, Director 
	 	 	
Mr.Julian Ros, Executive
	 
	For: OxySure Systems, Inc. 	 	 	 	 
	
Date: January 15. 2009
	 	 	
Date: January 15,2009
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6921

CHRISTOPHER ALAN BEAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CHADWICK DOTSON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Roderick Charles Young , District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 00601

- RCY

- MRC )

Submitted : January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Christopher Alan Bean, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6921 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Christopher Alan Bean seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Bean’s postjudgment motion for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order dismissing Bean’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely

. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould fin d the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bean has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6921 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### STATE v. ROBERT LOVELACE.

(Filed 11 October, 1967.)

Constitutional Law § 36—

Punishment within the statutory maximum cannot be considered cruel or unusual in the constitutional sense. Constitution of North Carolina, Art. I, § 14.

Appeal by defendant from *Brock, S.J.,*8 May 1967 Special Criminal Session of CLEVELAND.

Two bills of indictment, Nos. 67-87 and 67-87A, were returned by the grand jury against the defendant. Both bills of indictmept contained separate counts of felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny of goods of the value of over $200.00.

Detective E. W. Howell of the Shelby Police Department testified that he investigated a break-in on January 12, 1967 at the Allen Refrigeration Company where five television sets valued at $879.75 were reported missing. One set was found near the back door. Howell further testified to investigating a breakin that occurred on the night of January 15, 1967 at Taylor Johnson, Inc., where an electric calculator valued at $880.00 and an electric typewriter valued at $445.00 were reported missing. Howell and Lt. Lee talked to defendant about the breakins. Defendant voluntarily told them how he entered the two buildings and removed the goods therefrom. He stated that he sold the television sets for $35.00 each and the cal*594culator and typewriter for $50.00 each. The calculator, typewriter and three television sets were recovered.

Defendant, through court-appointed counsel, tendered pleas of guilty as charged on all counts. The court conducted oral and written inquiry and found that the pleas were freely, understandingly and voluntarily made before the pleas were accepted by the court.

Defendant was sentenced to not less that eight nor more than ten years under each indictment.

Defendant appealed.

Attorney, *General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Melvin, and Staff Attorney Costen for the State.*

*Henry B. Edwards for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error was that the sentences imposed by the court were excessive. He argues in his brief that they constituted cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of Article I, § 14, of the North Carolina Constitution.

> “It is well established that a sentence which does not exceed the maximum prescribed by statute for the offense of which the defendant has been convicted or of which he has entered a plea of guilty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by Article I, § 14, of the Constitution of North Carolina. *State v. Bruce,*268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216; *State v. Downey,*253 N.C. 348, 117 S.E. 2d 39; *State v. Lee,*247 N.C. 230, 100 S.E. 2d 372; *State v. Smith,*238 N.C. 82, 76 S.E. 2d 363; *State v. Daniels,*197 N.C. 285, 148 S.E. 244. The record reveals no violation of any constitutional right of the defendant or any error in the judgment of which he complains or in the proceedings leading thereto.” *State v. LePard,*270 N.C. 157, 153 S.E. 2d 875.

The court could have sentenced defendant to imprisonment for forty years. The sentences are well within the statutory limit and no error appears on the face of the record.

No error.
Case 1:07-cr-00367-HB Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 21


                              
            BAIRNCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                              
                 Subsidiaries of Registrant
                    as of March 23, 1998


                                     Percentage    State/Country of
                                     Ownership     Incorporation


Arlon, Inc.                            100%          Delaware
Kasco Corporation                      100%          Delaware
Bairnco Foreign Sales Corporation      100%          Barbados
Bertram & Graf Gmbh (1)                100%          Germany
Invabond Ltd. (1)                      100%          Ireland
Atlantic Service Co. Ltd. (1)          100%          Canada
Atlantic  Service Co. (UK) Ltd. (1)     98.9%        United Kingdom
EuroKasco S.A. (1)                     100%          France





(1) Indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Bairnco Corporation.
Case 1:06-cv-14867-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03356-PKC Document 5 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### WALSTON v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES

No. 176PC

No. 118 (Spring Term)

Case below: 49 N.C. App. 301

Petition by defendants for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 4 March 1981.
Case 1:07-cv-03384-JCF Document 13 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03384-JCF Document 13 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### JENKINS v. JENKINS

No. 141 PC.

Now No. 18 PA82.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 693.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 27 January 1982.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5

<MULTIPLIER>   1

       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           691,279
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,590,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,493,886
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 12,600
<PP&E>                                           2,893,114
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,704,748
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,470,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            946,850
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         242,756
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,280,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,470,133
<SALES>                                          6,803,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,803,330
<CGS>                                            6,830,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,830,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  21,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     21,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.00
        


</TABLE>