alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4836-7067-6077.1

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD

& SMITH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

ERICA K. ROCUSH, SB #021297 

Erica.Rocush@lewisbrisbois.com 

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Phoenix Plaza Tower II 

2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761 

Telephone: 602.385.1040 

Facsimile: 602.385.1051 

Attorneys for Defendant Foundation for Senior Living 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mildred Jane Lindner, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Foundation for Senior Living, an Arizona 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

No. 2-18-cv-00630-DJH 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

The parties stipulate to the dismissal of the above-captioned case with prejudice, 

each party to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. The text of the proposed order is 

attached to this stipulation. 

DATED this 19th day of July, 2018. 

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 

By /s/ Erica K. Rocush

Erica K. Rocush 

Attorneys for Defendant Foundation for 

Senior Living

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC

By /s/ David C. Kresin (with permission) 

Davod C. Kresin 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:18-cv-00630-DJH Document 18 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4836-7067-6077.1 2 

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD

& SMITH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 19, 2018, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing and deposited the same in the U.S. Mail to the following 

CM/ECF registrants: 

David C. Kresin 

ROBAINA & KRESIN, PLLC 

5343 North 16th Street 

Suite 200 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 /s/ Laura M. Nagelkirk

Case 2:18-cv-00630-DJH Document 18 Filed 07/19/18 Page 2 of 2
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1125 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to provide for the 

treatment of institutions of higher education as voter registration agencies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Mr. DURBIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to 

provide for the treatment of institutions of higher education as voter registration agencies. 

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 ‘‘Student Voter Oppor5 tunity To Encourage Registration Act of 2009’’ or the 

6 ‘‘Student VOTER Act of 2009’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 1125 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF UNIVERSITIES AS VOTER REG2 ISTRATION AGENCIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a) of the National Voter 

4 Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–5(a)) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (2)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub8 paragraph (A); 

9 (B) by striking the period at the end of 

10 subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

12 subparagraph: 

13 ‘‘(C) each institution of higher education 

14 (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Edu15 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) in the 

16 State that receives Federal funds.’’; and 

17 (2) in paragraph (6)(A), by inserting ‘‘or, in 

18 the case of an institution of higher education, with 

19 each registration of a student for enrollment in a 

20 course of study’’ after ‘‘assistance,’’. 

21 (b) AMENDMENT TO HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF

22 1965.—Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 

23 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by striking para24 graph (23). 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HENRY BETHUNE, #500130,

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-14412

Hon. Marianne O. Battani

v.

 Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

MARY BERGHUIS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 5, 2010. On March 24, 2010, Plaintiff

filed his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction FRCivP 65(a) and Notice to Adverse Party

FRCivP 65(a)(1) (Doc. No. 35). In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to “prevent further suffering

of irreparable harm while he awaits the final disposition of his case on appeal of right in the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. . . .” Motion at 1. 

As applicable here, Rule 8 provides that a party asking the court of appeals for a

stay or injunction pending appeal “must ordinarily move first in the district court” for that

relief. FED. R. APP. P. 8(a)(1)(C). The rules of appellate procedure only govern the

procedure in the courts of appeals. See FED. R. APP. P. 1(a) (1). Where the rules “provide

for filing a motion or other document in the district court, the procedure must comply with

the practice of the district court.” FED. R. APP. P. 1(a)(2). 

Here, the Court construes Petitioner's emergency motion as a motion pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c), which provides, “While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory
order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may

suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that

secure the opposing party's rights.” FED. R. CIV. P. 62(c). 

 In his motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to enjoin Defendants “from transferring

Plaintiff from his present facility of confinement, so as not to hin[d]er Plaintiff’s appeal of

right.” Doc. No. 35 at 1. Because an inmate possesses no constitutional right to prevent

transfer or to remain incarcerated in the facility of his choice, see Olim v. Wakinekona, 461

U.S. 238, 245 (1983), Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

 MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE: June 8, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were mailed and/or e-filed to Plaintiff and counsel of record on

this date.

 

 s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

 Case Manager
Order entered August 11, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01406-CV

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

EAST VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-07239

ORDER ON P. MICHAEL JUNG’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE EAST VILLAGE ASSOCIATION

Before the Court is P. Michael Jung’s unopposed motion to withdraw as co-counsel of 

record for Appellee East Village Association (“EVA”). Mr. Jung seeks to withdraw as cocounsel for EVA due to a conflict created by his nomination for a position on the Dallas City 

Plan & Zoning Commission. 

We hereby grant Mr. Jung’s motion to withdraw as co-counsel for EVA. We direct the 

Clerk of the Court to remove Mr. Jung as counsel for EVA and designate co-counsel Anthony 

Ricciardelli, Esq. of Kizzia Johnson PLLC as lead counsel for EVA.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 10.8**

**SECOND AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

**THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THEFIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**, made as of the 27th day of June 2005, by and between COMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Virginia corporation (the “Employer”), and RICHARD J. FREER, PH.D. (the “Executive”).

**WHEREAS**, the Employer and the Executive previously entered into a First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as ofJune 27, 2005 (the “Initial Agreement”); and 

**WHEREAS**, the Initial Agreement contained an equation to determinecertain performance-based cash, restricted stock and incentive option bonuses; and 

**WHEREAS**, the Employer and the Executive wish toamend the Initial Agreement to correct a mathematical error contained therein. 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, for good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the parties hereto, the Employer and the Executive hereby amend the Initial Agreement as follows: 

1. The equation contained in Section 4(c) is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“A + (A * (1-B)) = C” 

2. The equation contained in Section 4(f)(i) is hereby removed in its entirety and replacedwith the following: 

“5,000 + (5,000 * (1-A)) = B” 

3. The equation contained in Section 4(f)(ii) is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“2,500 + (2,500 * (1 – A)) = B” 

4. All other portions of the Initial Agreement remain ineffect. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, this Agreement has been executed as a sealed instrument by the Employer, byits duly authorized officer, and by the Executive, as of the date first above written. 

 

COMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By:
 /s/ Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.
Name:
 Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.
Title:
 Chief Executive Officer
Date:
 2/1/06 /s/ Richard J. Freer, Ph.D. Richard J. Freer, Ph.D.
Address:
 601 Biotech Drive              Richmond, Virginia 23235
Date:
 2/1/06
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20657

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL BOHANNAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TDCJ-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CV-1435)

August 20, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Michael Bohannan, Texas inmate # 366986, appeals the district

court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his civil

rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also has filed

a motion for leave to file a reply brief which was filed out of

time. His motion to file the reply brief is GRANTED.

Bohannan alleged t hat he was denied access to the courts

becaus e he was deprived of an adequate law library while he was2

incarcerated at the San Saba Transfer Facility in Texas. He argues

that none of the defendants, all public officials, were entitled to

immunity from suit. We have reviewed the record and parties’

briefs and AFFIRM the district court’ s grant of summary judgment

for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court.

Bohannan v. TDCJ , No. H-95-CV-1435 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 1997).

Bohannan argues that the district court failed to address his

claim regarding the lack of adequate medical care. He abandoned

that claim, however, when he submitted in his first more definite

statement that he had since received the medical treatment and that

he was not interested in obtaining injunctive relief for the same.

He also argues that the district court failed to address his claim

that the defendants interfered with his legal mail. Even if

Bohannan properly raised the claim in the district court, the fact

that this court reversed the district court’s dismissal of his suit

for failure to provide a second more definite statement indicates

that the alleged interference did not prejudice him as a litigant.

See Lewis v. Ca sey , 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Last, Bohannan

argues that the district court failed to address his claim that he

was retaliated against for filing the instant law suit. Bohannan

never sought to amend his complaint to ad d this claim.

Additionally, Bohannan’s argument that he was entitled to the

appointment of counsel fails. S ee Ulmer v. Chancellor

, 691 F.2d

209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 3039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1647]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

BancTenn Corp. et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions by; and 
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than February 23, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. BancTenn Corp., Kingsport, Tennessee; and Carter County Bancorp, 
Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee; each to acquire a total of 12.495 percent 
of the voting shares of Cornerstone Community Bank (in organization), 
Chattanooga, Tennessee.
    2. Community Financial Group, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee; to become 
a bank holding company by acquiring 80 percent of the voting shares of 
The Bank of Nashville, Nashville, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 24, 
1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-1647 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Alex RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 0003-87.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Feb. 28, 1990.

On appellant’s petition for discretionary review: petition dismissed as improvidently granted.

TEAGUE, J., dissents.
Order entered August 21 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00380
- CV RICHARD A. MYERS, ET AL . , Appellant s V. LINDA PAVLIK , ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 11
- 13928 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s August 16, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal filed by appellants on March 20, 2013 is deemed timely for jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney

District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 14249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov)

DOMINIC LANZA (Cal. Bar No. 225989, dominic.lanza@usdoj.gov)

MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, 

margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov)

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Two Renaissance Square

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

JOHN P. CRONAN

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) 

Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone (202) 616-280

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES LARKIN

Defendant.

______________________________

James A Larkin and Margaret G. 

Larkin, Trustees of the Ocotillo 

Family Trust dated June 2, 2008

 Titleholder.

No. CR 18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

NOTICE OF GOVERNMENT’S FILING OF 

RECORDED LIS PENDENS AS TO REAL 

PROPERTY LOCATED PARADISE VALLEY, ARIZONA

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 218 Filed 07/17/18 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to Section 405.22 of the California Code of civil 

Procedure, plaintiff United States of America hereby files with the 

court a copy of the notice of pendency of action (hereinafter the 

“Lis Pendens”) which was filed against the defendant real property at 

the Office of the County Recorder of for Maricopa County, Arizona. A 

copy of the Lis Pendens is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

Dated: July 17, 2018

 

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States 

Attorney

District of Arizona

JOHN P. CRONAN

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Division, U.S. Department 

of Justice

_/s/John J. Kucera______________

KEVIN RAPP

DOMINIC LANZA

MARGARET PERLMETER

JOHN J. KUCERA

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

REGINALD JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 218 Filed 07/17/18 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATION

I certify that on July 17, 2018, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for 

filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following 

CM/ECF registrants: Anne Chapman, Erin McCampbell, James Grant, Lee 

Stein, Paul Cambria, Robert Corn-Revere, Ronald London, Janey Henze 

Cook, John Littrell, Kenneth Miller, Thomas Bienart, Jr., Bruce Feder, 

Michael Kimerer, Rhonda Neff, KC Maxwell, David Wakukawa, Michael 

Piccarreta, Stephen Weiss.

By: s/Shannen Beckman

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 218 Filed 07/17/18 Page 3 of 3
#### CITY OF ROCK PORT, Missouri, Respondent, v. Vickie COOK, et al., Defendants, Greg Shelton, Appellant.

No. WD 48863.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 11, 1994.

Jefferson G. Broady, Rock Port, for appellant.

Roger M. Prokes, Maryville, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and BERREY and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from declaratory judgment authorizing annexation to the City of Rock Port.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
IV 

House Calendar No. 120 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 829 

[Report No. 111–300] 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill 

(H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 

Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 14, 2009 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for 

the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for 

4 the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year 

5 ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 829 RH 

1 conference report shall be considered as read. All points 

2 of order against the conference report and against its con3 sideration are waived. The previous question shall be con4 sidered as ordered on the conference report to its adoption 

5 without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; 

6 and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 120 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 829 

[Report No. 111–300] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report 

2010, and for other purposes. Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, propriations for the Department of Homeland to accompany the bill (H.R. 2892) making apOCTOBER 14, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Cynthia A. LEACH, Appellant, v. Eva G. SMYSER, Respondent.

No. WD 47072.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 17, 1993.

John R. Shank, Kansas City, for appellant.

Norman I. Reichel, Overland Park, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BERREY and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4924

_____________________________ A NDREW J OSEPH G IVENS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

. December 14, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , K ELSEY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and David A. Henson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; and Andrew Joseph Givens, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FRO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN PART II, ITEM 8 OF FORM 10-K DATED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          54,682
<SECURITIES>                                     6,989
<RECEIVABLES>                                      321
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,321
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,217
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,069
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,439
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                97,692
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (89,447)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,004)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (88,443)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (88,443)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (17.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (17.89)


</TABLE>