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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rodrigo Contreras-Ramirez,

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-15-01692-PHX-GMS

No. CR-13-01001-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 

Sentence, (Doc. 1), and United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”), (Doc. 33). The R&R recommends that the Court deny the 

Motion, (Doc. 33 at 5). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 

days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be 

considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 6 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-
- 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 

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 33) is ACCEPTED. 

 2. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, (Doc. 1), is 

DENIED. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 20th day of September, 2017. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"An Additively Manufactured Torch Igniter for Liquid Propellants","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OdVxs2eWXG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/an-additively-manufactured-torch-igniter-for-liquid-propellants\/\">An Additively Manufactured Torch Igniter for Liquid Propellants<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/an-additively-manufactured-torch-igniter-for-liquid-propellants\/embed\/#?secret=OdVxs2eWXG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“An Additively Manufactured Torch Igniter for Liquid Propellants” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OdVxs2eWXG\" 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\/2016\/07\/tinker_darren.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":839}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cheryl Demuth-Kresser,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04074-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Curtis Law Group

(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 11/27/2017, 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: December 8, 2017 /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 9269 Filed 12/12/17 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 9269 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Anthony Greicius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/anthony-greicius-116962jpl-nasa-gov\/","title":"Deep Space Atomic Clock Moves Toward Increased Spacecraft Autonomy","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BH58Ri1ib7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/jpl\/deep-space-atomic-clock-moves-toward-increased-spacecraft-autonomy\/\">Deep Space Atomic Clock Moves Toward Increased Spacecraft Autonomy<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/jpl\/deep-space-atomic-clock-moves-toward-increased-spacecraft-autonomy\/embed\/#?secret=BH58Ri1ib7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Deep Space Atomic Clock Moves Toward Increased Spacecraft Autonomy” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BH58Ri1ib7\" 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\/06\/deep-space-atomic-clock-1-1041.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                             432
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,805
<PP&E>                                          32,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,928
<BONDS>                                          8,194
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           32,849
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,549)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,884
<SALES>                                         14,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,173
<CGS>                                            3,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    172
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                178
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,313)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,135)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.67)


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS CHALE-RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70775

Agency No. A098-402-724

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Chale-Rodriguez, native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

FILED

FEB 24 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70775

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

factual findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and we

review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105,

1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. 

The record does not compel the conclusion that Chale-Rodriguez’s untimely

asylum application is excused by extraordinary circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(2)(D); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (per

curiam). We lack jurisdiction to consider Chale-Rodriguez’s contention that his

untimely asylum application is excused by changed circumstances because it is

unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we

further reject Chale-Rodriguez’s contention that the agency violated his due

process rights by not considering changed circumstances. See Lata v. INS, 204

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to

establish a due process violation). Accordingly, Chale-Rodriguez’s asylum claim

fails. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chale-Rodriguez

failed to demonstrate past persecution based on the threats, harassment, and

robbery Chale-Rodriguez and his family suffered. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d

1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, substantial evidence supports the
3 08-70775

agency’s finding that Chale-Rodriguez failed to show a clear probability of future

persecution from the Sendero Luminoso because, while his similarly situated father

has received threats, the Sendero Luminoso has not harmed his father. See Lim v.

INS, 224 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Chale-Rodriguez’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Chale-Rodriguez has not established a likelihood of torture by or with the

acquiescence of the Peruvian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066,

1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
FOR COURT USE ONLY

DUE DAT'E:

\AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. l/2015)

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

2, PHONE NUMBER

602-382-6304

3. DATE

1t29t2018 I. NAME Amanda Sheridan

4. FIRM NAME

Snell& Wilmer

6, CITY

Phoenix

7, STATE

AZ

8, ZIP CODE

85004

5. MAILING ADDRESS

400 E Van Buren St

9. CASE NUMBER DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

MDL 15-02641 PHX DGC

10. ruDGE Campbell ll '19118 12.

I3. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

Bard IVC Filters Products Liabilitv Litiqation 14. Phoenix 15, STATE AZ

16. ORDER FOR

f:l APPEAL

ñ NoN-eppnel

! czuutNal

Ø ctvn

! cnrvrNe¡- rusrcn ACT

n w ronve PAUPERTs

! BANKRUPTCY

¡ OTHER (specify)

I 7. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PÔRTTONS DATF,ISI ,oRTtoNtsl DATEISì

n VOIR DIRE I resuvoNY (speciû)

tr OPENING STATEMENT (PlaintifÐ

n OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

n closruc ARGUMENT (Plainriff) I rnr-rzuer- PRocEEDING

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

l-l opmton oF couRr

Z oTHER (specify) fl :unv rNSrRUCrroNS

E spursNclNc Status Conference 1119118

BAIL HEARING

I R ORDF,R

CATEGORY ESTIMATED COSTS

ORIGINAL + I

(original to Court,

conv to orderins nartv)

FIRST

COPY

#oF

ADDITIONAL

COPIR,S

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

30 DAYS tr tr

I4 DAYS ¡ u

7 DAYS Ø ¡

DAILY ! n

HOURLY tr !

REALTIME ! u

fl nanencorv

Ø PDF (e-mail)

Z ASCII (e-mail)

E-MAIL ADDRESS

CERTTFICATTON asheridan@swlaw.com (19. &. 20.)

By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

l9

20. DArE 112912018

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE.

I'RANSCruP'I''I O tsb PKbPAK.bD BY

ESTIMATETOTAL

ORDER RECETVED DATE BY PROCESSED BY PHONENUMBER

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TTGNSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERTNG PAR.TY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIP'I OI{DEIì COPY

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9883 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 1
#### Eva Avezzano et al., Appellants, v Alberto Savoretti et al., Defendants, and Guido Selva et al., Respondents.

[788 NYS2d 621]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), entered April 30, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against them, in effect, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We need not reach the issue of whether the history portions of the plaintiff Eva Avezzano’s hospital records were properly admitted into evidence. The jury, complying with the trial court’s instructions, ceased deliberations after determining that the defendants were not negligent and never reached the issue of the proximate cause of the accident. Since the evidence challenged on this appeal concerns only the latter issue, its admission could not have affected the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants *(see Ciotti v New York Hosp.,*221 AD2d 581 [1995]; *Olsen v City of New York,*141 AD2d 709 [1988]). Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2446

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 

that the calculation of the duty imposed on imported cherries that are 

provisionally preserved does not include the weight of the preservative 

materials of the cherries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2004

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to provide that the calculation of the duty imposed 

on imported cherries that are provisionally preserved does 

not include the weight of the preservative materials of 

the cherries.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•S 2446 IS 

1 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CALCULATION OF DUTY IM2 POSED ON IMPORTED CHERRIES THAT ARE 

3 PROVISIONALLY PRESERVED. 

4 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Subheading 0812.10.00 of the 

5 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in the general subcolumn of the column 1 

8 rate of duty, by inserting ‘‘on drained weight’’ after 

9 ‘‘13.4¢/kg’’; and 

10 (2) in the special subcolumn of the column 1 

11 rate of duty, by inserting ‘‘on drained weight’’ after 

12 ‘‘2.6¢/kg’’ and ‘‘11.7¢/kg’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 subsection (a) shall be effective for the period beginning 

15 on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on 

16 the date on which the specific rate of duty involved is re17 duced to free.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                                 1,294,000
<SECURITIES>                                           5,814,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,424,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            (163,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              315,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      10,396,000
<PP&E>                                                 1,356,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                          (790,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        16,202,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,643,000
<BONDS>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                  47,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                            14,405,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          16,202,000
<SALES>                                                4,817,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      10,303,000
<CGS>                                                  3,951,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          7,595,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        2,728,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                           1,009,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    1,719,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                           1,719,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                .36
        


</TABLE>