alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 1 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 2 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 3 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 4 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 5 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 6 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 7 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 8 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 9 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 10 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 11 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 12 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 13 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 14 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 15 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 16 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 17 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-14      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 18 of 18
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, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

January 25, 2013

s0122

Order 

January 25, 2013

145898

EDWARD GOLDBERG and MARIETTE

GOLDBERG,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 145898

COA: 301439

Wayne CC: 09-009067-NH

JOHN WLEZNIAK, M.D., MARIO PASTORES,

R.N., and ST. MARY HOSPITAL OF LIVONIA,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 23.01**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Certified Public Accountants 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117890 ) pertaining to the Xicor, Inc. 1998employee Stock Purchase Plan, Xicor, Inc. 1990 Incentive and Non-incentive Stock Option Plan, Xicor, Inc. 1998 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan, Xicor, Inc. 2002 Stock Option Plan, Xicor, Inc. 2000 Director Option Plan, Xicor, Inc. 1995 DirectorOption Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-88208) pertaining to the Elantec Semiconductor, Inc. 1983 Stock Option Plan, Elantec Semiconductor, Inc. 1994 Equity Incentive Plan, Elantec Semiconductor, Inc. 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Elantec Semiconductor,Inc. 1995 Equity Incentive Plan and Elantec Semiconductor, Inc. 2001 Equity Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-31094) pertaining to the Intersil Corporation 1999 Equity Compensation Plan and Intersil Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (FormS-8 No. 333-50718) pertaining to the SiCOM, Inc. 1985 Incentive Stock Option Plan, SiCOM, Inc. 1996 Equity Incentive Plan and Option Issued to Robert W. Putnam, (Form S-8 No. 333-50722) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan of No Wires NeededB.V., (Form S-8 No. 333-65804) pertaining to the Intersil Corporation 1999 Equity Compensation Plan, (Form S-4 No. 333-35052) and (Form S-4 No. 333-46984) and the related Prospectuses of Intersil Corporation of our reports dated March 14, 2005, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Intersil Corporation, Intersil Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of Intersil Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

March 14, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 19 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 19 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 19 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 3 of 3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA G. LESLIE,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 17

- 70450

Tax Ct. No. 27014

- 12

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted June 4, 2018 **

Pasadena, California

Before: FISHER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, *** District Judge.

Taxpayer Maria Leslie (“Leslie”) appeals from the tax court’s decision on

h er petition for redetermination of federal income tax deficiency for years 2007

–

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except a s provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for

the District o f Montana, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 6 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

2009. We review the tax court’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual

findings for clear error. Johanson v. Comm’r , 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008)

.

As the parties ar e familiar with the facts , we do not recount them here. We affirm.

Leslie challenges the tax court’s conclusion that certain payments she

received from her former husband , Byron Georgiou (“Georgiou”), under their

marital settlement agreement were alim o ny under Internal Revenue Code § 71(b),

and thus income taxable to her. Instead, she argues, the payments should have

been treated as a lump

- sum payment not subject to federal income tax under

§ 1041(a). At the same time, Leslie concedes that § 71(b) provides the applicable

definition of alimony and that the payments in question meet the statutory

definition of § 71(b).

We agree : § 71(b) plainly applies to the payments at issue. The payments

were received “under a

. . . separation instrument.” § 71(b)(1)(A). The separation

instrument designated the payments as “taxable to Ms. Leslie and deductible to Mr.

Georgiou as spousal support.” See § 71(b)(1)(B). Leslie and Georgiou were “not

members of the same household at the time such payment[s] [were] made.”

§ 71(b)(1)(C). And finally, by operation of California law, the liability to make the

payments would have ended upon Georgiou’s death. § 71(b)(1)(D) ; see Cal. Fam.

Code § 4337

.

When a statute has a plain meaning, it is that meaning we apply. Hughes3

Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson , 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999). C ourts , moreover, “do not

resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.” Ratzlaf v. United

States , 510 U.S. 135, 147

– 48 (1994). We therefore d ecline Leslie’s invitation to

reject the statute’s plain meaning.

AFFIRMED

.
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

         I, Scott Landow, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Parentech,
Inc.;

         2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4.     The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

                (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) 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

                (c) 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

         5.     The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditor and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

                (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.



Dated:  July 16, 2004

         /s/ Scott Landow
         ----------------
         Scott Landow, Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 72121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23577]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notices

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, December 6, 2005, 10 a.m. 
meeting closed to the public. This meeting was rescheduled to 
Wednesday, December 7, 2005, at 2 p.m.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, December 7, 2005 at 2 p.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, Sec.  438(b), and Title 
26, U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.


DATE AND TIME: Thursday, December 8, 2005, at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, D.C. (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Correction and Approval of Minutes.
    Advisory Opinion 2005-19: Inside Track Productions by Mr. Emil 
Franzi.
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Coordinated Communications.
    Routine Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-23577 Filed 11-29-05; 2:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
SCWC-13-0002125 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I 

RENE UMBERGER, MIKE NAKACHI, KA#IMI KAUPIKO, WILLIE KAUPIKO, 

CONSERVATION COUNCIL FOR HAWAI#I, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE 

UNITED STATES, and CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

vs. 

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI#I, 

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-13-0002125; CIVIL NO. 12-1-2625-10 JHC) 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) 

 

 Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Application for 

Writ of Certiorari, filed on November 10, 2016, is hereby 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0002125

20-DEC-2016

03:01 PM
2 

accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties 

will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 20, 2016. 

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JUSTIN JOHNSON,

on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-26/RS-MD

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION and

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A, INC.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Stay Pending 

Action by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) (Doc. 7); and 

unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint (Doc. 8) are

GRANTED. This action is stayed pending action by the JPML; Defendants’

deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended until fourteen (14) days after the 

JPML has entered a decision in this matter.

ORDERED on April 28, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 4 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BRAD M. SHIPLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv32-MP/WCS

STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE, 

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed February

2, 2010, Plaintiff was directed to either submit the $350.00 filing fee in full, or file a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by March 5, 2010. Plaintiff was

specifically warned that a recommendation would be made that this case be dismissed

if he failed to comply with that order. Doc. 2. To date, no response has been received

from the Plaintiff. 
A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a

court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order or to

prosecute this case, his complaint should now be dismissed without prejudice. 

The Plaintiff shall have a 15 day period after service of this report and

recommendation in which to file objections. This will also afford Plaintiff a final

opportunity to show good cause for his failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by a

motion for reconsideration which will be referred to me by the Clerk.

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 17, 2010. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv32-MP/WCS Page 2 of 2
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 5 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 6 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 7 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 8 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 9 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 10 of 11
Case 4:10-cv-00102-MP-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/02/10 Page 11 of 11
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CAESAR WHITE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:09cv574/LAC/EMT

SUSAN NELMS, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has also submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 8). 

Upon review of the motion to proceed IFP and attached financial affidavit, the undersigned

concludes that Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient information for the court to grant the motion. 

For example, in the affidavit of financial status, Plaintiff indicates that he owns a car valued at

$1200.00, has $1000.00 cash in a bank or credit union account, currently receives $1006.00 monthly

in unemployment benefits, and has a Florida Retirement System account with a balance of $3167.90. 

The information provided by Plaintiff reflects that he presently has adequate income to cover his

stated monthly financial obligations for essentials, such as rent ($150.00), food (estimated by

Plaintiff to be $200.00 to $400.00), and fuel ($100.00). It also appears that Plaintiff has sufficient

funds to pay other monthly expenses for such non-essential items as cell phone service ($46.00) and

storage ($95.00). Plaintiff states that his student loan debt is presently in deferment. 

In order to proceed with this case, Plaintiff must either pay the filing fee for a civil case of

$350.00 or file a properly completed IFP application. To the extent Plaintiff asserts that his financial

circumstances have changed since filing the instant application, i.e., his unemployment benefits have
Page 2 of 2

in fact been reduced, he may so state in the amended application which is signed under penalty of

perjury. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 8) is DENIED without

prejudice.

2. The clerk shall send Plaintiff a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a financial

affidavit approved for use by non-prisoners in the Northern District of Florida.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order Plaintiff shall

(1) pay the $350.00 filing fee, or (2) submit a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with

the requisite affidavit of financial status. 

4. Failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a recommendation that

this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of February 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No.: 3:09cv574/LAC/EMT
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARK GEORGE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv131-SPM/WCS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated June 2, 2010 (doc. 5). Plaintiff has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. I have determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as

follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 5) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute 
Page 2 of 2

and failure to comply with a court order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 4:10cv131-SPM/WCS
#### STATE v. HYATT

No. 136 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 623.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 June 1977.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         3,532
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  20,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    86,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,912
<PP&E>                                         33,717
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          186,465
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (304,881)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,009
<SALES>                                        246,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,319
<CGS>                                          140,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  140,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20,561)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20,561)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,561)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (20,561)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>