alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"Building on a Mission: The Project Management Building, Home to the Center\u2019s Directors \u2013 Part 2","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"S6Bw09CkYq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/johnson\/building-on-a-mission-the-project-management-building-home-to-the-centers-directors-part-2\/\">Building on a Mission: The Project Management Building, Home to the Center\u2019s Directors \u2013 Part 2<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/johnson\/building-on-a-mission-the-project-management-building-home-to-the-centers-directors-part-2\/embed\/#?secret=S6Bw09CkYq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Building on a Mission: The Project Management Building, Home to the Center\u2019s Directors \u2013 Part 2” — NASA\" data-secret=\"S6Bw09CkYq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/building_1_center_directors_pt_2_2_nov_15_2021_img_1052.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":394}
#### LARRY MELTON v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SANTOS RODRIGUEZ.

September 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michele Ostovar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michele-e-ostovarnasa-gov\/","title":"Gemini III","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"cMGSi8AUUP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/gemini-iii\/\">Gemini III<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/gemini-iii\/embed\/#?secret=cMGSi8AUUP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Gemini III” — NASA\" data-secret=\"cMGSi8AUUP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/gemini-3-patch.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":596}
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 12, 2014

No. 04-13-00201-CV

BANK OF AMERICAN, N.A. as Trustee of Bettye Baker Brown Trust, u/w, f/b/o William 

David Deiss, Bettye Baker Brown Trust u/w, f/b/o Diane Elizabeth Mysliweic, Bettye Baker 

Brown Trust u/w/, f/b/o Paula Jane Roberts, Dorothy Baker Shaw 1966 Trust, Baker E. Shaw, as 

Trustee of the Dorothy Ann Roos Testamentary Trust, and Cliff Hoskins, Inc. as Intervenor

Appellants

v.

PRIZE ENERGY RESOURCES, L.P., Prize Operating Company, Gruy Petroleum 

Management Company n/k/a Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc.,

Cimarex Energy Co., Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., Pat R. Rutherford Jr., Michael G. Rutherford, 

Rutherford Oil Corporation, Stevan D. Rutherford, Patrick R. Rutherford III, Mary Elizabeth 

Rutherford, Paul Maroney Rutherford, David Traylor Rutherford, Michael G. Rutherford Jr., 

John Richard Rutherford, and Sally Ann Rutherford

Appellees

From the 343rd Judicial District Court, McMullen County, Texas

Trial Court No. M05-0002-CV-C

Honorable Michael E. Welborn, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On August 29, 2014, this court issued its opinion and judgment. On September 4, 2014, 

Appellees filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing until 

October 15, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1, 49.7, 49.8. 

Appellees’ motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellees’ motion is due to be 

filed with this court on October 15, 2014.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00286-CV

Toinette JONES,

Appellant

v.

YES HOMESALES EXP, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2024CV02061

Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 31, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was due on May 29, 2024 and was not filed. On June 13, 2024, we ordered 

appellant to file, by June 28, 2024: (1) her brief; and (2) a written response reasonably explaining 

her failure to timely file a brief and why appellee was not significantly injured by appellant’s 

failure to timely file a brief. We cautioned appellant that if she failed to timely file the brief and 

written response, we would dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant fails to 

comply with court order).
04-24-00286-CV

- 2 -

Appellant did not file a brief or otherwise respond to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss 

this appeal for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000894245
<NAME> AEI NET LEASE INCOME & GROWTH FUND XX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,757,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,757,207
<PP&E>                                      17,281,355
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,134,799)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,903,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          540,085
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,363,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,903,763
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,017,523
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  382,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                769,388
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            769,388
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   769,388
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    32.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    32.57
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Franklin Conner,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04387-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 1/4/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: January 12, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9666 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9666 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 5, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60482

LONNIE DONNELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LINDA EDWARDS; SCOTT FITCH, Warden; DIANE FOY, Commander; DANA RICKS, Hearing Officer; NICHOLE BERANICH, Unit Manager; W. CLEMENS, Chief of Security,
Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:02-CV-1538-WS

-------------------- Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lonnie Donnelly, Mississippi prisoner # K1304, proceeding in forma pauperis , filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and consented to have his case determined by a magistrate judge, who dismissed the complaint. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660No. 03-60482 -2- (5th Cir. 1987). Under F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(4), the filing of a timely F ED . R. C IV . P. 59(e) motion renders a notice of appeal ineffective until an order is entered disposing of the motion. A motion requesting reconsideration of a judgment is treated as a Rule 59 motion for purposes of F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(4), regardless of the label applied to the motion, if it is made within the 10- day limit for Rule 59(e) motions. See Mangieri v. Clifton , 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994); Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc. , 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Although styled as “objections” to the judgment, Donnelly’s post-judgment filing challenges the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his complaint. Accordingly, despite the label affixed by this
pro se litigant, the post-judgment filing must be regarded as a Rule 59(e) motion because it was filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 6(a); see also Harcon Barge , 784 F.2d at 667. Accordingly, this case must be remanded, and the record returned to the magistrate judge, so that the magistrate judge may rule upon Donnelly’s Rule 59(e) motion as expeditiously as possible, consistent with a just and fair disposition thereof.
See Burt v. Ware , 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). This court retains jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand stated above.
LIMITED REMAND.
In the Missouri Court of Appeals 

Eastern District 

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b). 

1. ED98490 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V KURT DWAYNE USRY, APP 

2. ED98634 JAMES ATCHISON, RES V PORTER POULTRY, APP 

3. ED99454 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ROBERT B. HUNT, APP 

4. ED99627 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V CHICORY GRIFFIN, APP 

5. ED99740 JANET ALLEN, APP V FULL SERV. SYSTEMS & DES, RES
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Meet System-Wide Safety\u2019s Hannah Walsh","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QjCBY9R63W\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aosp\/sws\/meet-system-wide-safetys-hannah-walsh\/\">Meet System-Wide Safety\u2019s Hannah Walsh<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aosp\/sws\/meet-system-wide-safetys-hannah-walsh\/embed\/#?secret=QjCBY9R63W\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Meet System-Wide Safety\u2019s Hannah Walsh” — NASA\" data-secret=\"QjCBY9R63W\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/hannah_and_husband.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":452}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DONALD MCNAIR.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Watson et al. *v.*Avery et al.

Mandate of Appellate Court — Duty of Judge of Lower Court to Obey.

It is not discretionary with a Judge of the lower Court to enter the mandate of the Court of Appeals. When such a mandate, accompanied with a motion for- judgment, is presented, same must be entered, and final judgment given.

Supplemental Pleadings — Mandate of Appellate Court — Relief from on Grounds Not Litigated — Judgment.

After the mandate of the Appellate Court shall have been entered and final judgment rendered by the trial judge in the Court below, said judgment may be stayed by supplementary pleadings if the grounds for relief show; in the allegations, matters not litigated. But the Court cannot allow such proceedings to be begun before the mandate shall be entered or accept such pleadings in lieu thereof.

APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CHY. DIV.

June 26, 1868.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters :

On motion.

Tbe only question, it seems to me, which can arise upon this proceeding is, do the reasons set forth in the response of the 'chancellor, justify him, in refusing to enter a final judgment in the case named, carrying out the mandate of this Court ?

It was his duty, when the opinion, and mandate of this Court were presented, in the Louisville Chancery Court, accompanied with a motion for a judgment, to enter them, to proceed, in a reasonable time, to enter a final judgment to carry out the orders, and mandate of this Court.

And then if appellees _ should by sufficient allegations, in an original, or supplementary pleading, show themselves entitled to relief, for reasons, and upon grounds not litigated, and concluded in the proceedings and adjudications in the previous case, it would be proper for the chancellor to make such preliminary orders, and grant such relief as they might show themselves entitled to.

In addition to the implied constitutional power, the Legislature *241has, by an. express enactment, conferred full power on this court to compel an enforcement of its mandates by inferior courts, and if it fails in this duty, the right of appeal is valueless, and the court a useless expense to the State. Section 902 Civ. C.

*Bullitt, Caldwell, for appellant.*

*Ilarlan, for appellee.*

My opinion therefore, is, that an order be made requiring the chancellor to enter the opinion, and mandate in this case, and that the same be carried out according to their ,true intent, and meaning.

(See original opinion 2. Bush.
**Exhibit
      15**





**ACCOUNTANT’S
      ACKNOWLEDGMENT**




We
      acknowledge the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form S-3 (filed in October 2000 and March 2001) and Form S-8 (filed in November
      1997) of Penn Octane Corporation of our report dated May 2, 2006 which appears
      on page 3 of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
      2006.








/s/
      BURTON MCCUMBER & CORTEZ, L.L.P.




Brownsville,
      Texas


May
      22,
      2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      22,379,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,396,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,127,000
<INVENTORY>                                 22,933,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,153,000
<PP&E>                                      77,652,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,762,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             239,713,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       36,171,000
<BONDS>                                    146,078,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,900,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               239,713,000
<SALES>                                     78,592,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            78,592,000
<CGS>                                       47,249,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               79,726,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (56,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,450,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,528,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,141,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,669,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,669,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)
        

</TABLE>