alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 4.1


                           FORM OF STOCK CERTIFICATE



NUMBER                                                                    SHARES
________                                                                 _______


                        RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES, INC.

              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA


COMMON STOCK                                                   CUSIP 750323 20 6
                                                                     -----------




THIS CERTIFIES THAT

Is the owner of

Fully Paid and Non-Assessable Shares of Common Stock, $.0001 par value, of
Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., transferable only on the books of the
corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon
surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the
Transfer Agent and Registrar.  Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation
and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:



_________________________________________
Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., Chief Executive
Officer and President


_________________________________________
David Koeninger, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:15-mj-01771-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01771-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01771-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 3
#### PATRICK J. KEARNS AND MARY KEARNS, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 1, 1945

Decided May 18, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bodine and Perskie.

Por the appellant, *Lum, Fairlie*<£ *Wachenfeld (Charles S.*Barrett, *Jr.).*

Por the respondents, *Martin J. Loftus.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodire, J.

This was a suit on a policy of fire insurance covering premises situate at 281 Lafayette Avenue, Passaic, New Jersey.

The policy of standard form provides: “In the event of disagreement as to the amount of loss the same shall, as above provided, be ascertained by two competent and disinterested appraisers, the insured and this company each selecting one, and the two so chosen shall first select a competent and disinterested umpire; the appraisers together shall then estimate and appraise the loss, stating separately sound value and damage, and, failing to agree, shall submit their differences to the umpire; and the award in writing of any two shall determine the amount of such loss; the parties thereto shall pay the appraiser respectively selected by them and shall bear equally the expense of the appraisal and umpire. * * * No suit or action on this policy, for the recovery of any claim, shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity until after full compliance by the insured with all the foregoing require*51ments, nor unless commenced within twelve months next alter the fire.”

Pursuant to these provisions appraisers were selected and an umpire was chosen by them. Note: the duty was to find sound value and the damage. The award in writing oí any two was determinative of the loss. The award so made showed that the loss was *none.*

The learned trial judge refused to receive the award in evidence, the reason being that written thereon were the following words: “I find no loss on the assumption that no lightning struck.”

The award should have been received in evidence. *Kaplan*v. *Niagara Fire, Insurance Go.,*73 *N. J. L.*780; *Fagliarone*v. *Consolidated Film Industries, Inc.,*131 *Id.*315. An award in arbitration may be set aside in the manner and lor the reason stated in *R. F.*:40 — 19. Courts o£ equity also act for certain reasons given. *Goerke Kirch Co.*v. *Goerke Kirch Holding Co.,*118 *N. J. Eq.*1. The award till vacated is conclusive between the parties. *Deakman*v. *The Odd Fellows Hall Association of Jersey City,*110 *N. J. L.*304.

But two questions were submitted for finding, *i. e.,*the sound value of the property and the loss sustained. These matters were determined, and, if improperly, as argued a direct proceeding should have been taken. *Ruckman*v. *Ransom,*35 *N. J. J.*565.

The judgment is reversed.
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Reed Raymond Lee, 

Defendant.

No. CR16-08015-001-PCT-DMF

ORDER 

 The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's probable cause 

hearing was waived and the detention hearing was held on the record including a proffer 

by defense counsel. The Court finds probable cause to believe the defendant violated the 

terms of his supervised release as alleged in the petition. The Court further finds, 

pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), that defendant has failed to show by clear and convincing 

evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant shall be bound over for further 

proceedings on the petition to revoke her supervised release. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is detained as flight risk and 

danger, pending further revocation proceedings. 

 Dated this 29th day of November, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cr-08015-DMF Document 24 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Christine Giraldo","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/cegirald\/","title":"NASA’s 2023 Space Station Achievements","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jk8FmvgC1e\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/nasas-2023-space-station-achievements\/\">NASA’s 2023 Space Station Achievements<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/nasas-2023-space-station-achievements\/embed\/#?secret=jk8FmvgC1e\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA’s 2023 Space Station Achievements” — NASA\" data-secret=\"jk8FmvgC1e\" 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\/12\/iss069e055101medium.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
Exhibit 31.2  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Gordon L. Wiltse, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lions Petroleum, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, 
and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that 
occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter 
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small 
business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of 
internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small 
business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’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 
small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: February 19, 2007 /s/ Gordon L. Wiltse Gordon L. Wiltse Chief Financial Officer
No. 69119 

# FILED
APR 21 2016

E K. LINDEMAN m U IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GRUPO FAMSA, S.A. DE C.V., A MEXICAN CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and RE. UNO, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Party in Interest.


### ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This is an original petition for writ of mandamus challenging a district court order requiring a supersedeas bond.

Grupo Famsa, S.A. de C.V. (Grupo) challenges the district court's order fixing a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,000,000 in connection with a temporary stay pending resolution of its writ petition in Docket No. 68626. As the issuance of a bond is not required by rule or statute, but lies within the discretion of the trial court, we review the district court's decision to fix a bond for an abuse of discretion. 

### See NRAP 8(a)(2)(E); 

### see also Bowler v. Leonard, 70 Nev. 370, 386, 269 P.2d 833, 840- 41 (1954). We hold that the district court abused its discretion in fixing the $1,000,000 supersedeas bond. The bond was premised on a judgment

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A Alej49 

## )Lo-- 

# 1J.

in an earlier action to which Grupo was not a party. Although it appears Grupo may have contractually guaranteed satisfaction of that judgment, Grupo's liability has not been adjudicated and, in this instance, the supersedeas bond serves as a procedurally improper pre-judgment writ of attachment. 

### See NRS 31.010-31.235. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to vacate its order fixing the supersedeas bond.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas/Las Vegas Levinson Arshonsky & Kurtz, 

### LLP Goold Patterson Eighth Judicial District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A
9024.

#### Anderson *v.*Bibb Manufacturing Company.

Decided July 30, 1918.

Rehearing denied September 17, 1918.

Action for damages;'from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. June 23, 1917.

■ *Napier & Maynard,*for plaintiff.

*Miller & J ones,*for defendant.

Bboyles, P. J.

Under the facts of this case as disclosed by the record, it does not appear that the court erred in granting a nonsuit, or in thereafter refusing to reinstate the case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Harwell, J., concurs; Bloodworth, J., dissents.*
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126420) pertaining to the Xerium Technologies, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan of our reports dated February 28, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Xerium Technologies, Inc., Xerium Technologies, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of XeriumTechnologies, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

February 28, 2007
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF ARES CAPITAL CORPORATION

Name

JurisdictionARCC ABB LLC

DELAWAREARCC AXC LLC

DELAWAREARCC BALKO LLC

DELAWAREARCC BM LLC

DELAWAREARCC CIC FLEX CORPORATION

DELAWAREARCC C&C CORP

DELAWAREARCC CCS, INC.

DELAWAREARCC CLPB CORPORATION

DELAWAREARCC CP LLC

DELAWAREARCC CRESCENT LLC

DELAWAREARCC ECG LLC

DELAWAREARCC FD CORP.

DELAWAREARCC GAC LLC

DELAWAREARCC GF, LLC

DELAWAREARCC HBF LLC

DELAWAREARCC IGS CORP.

DELAWAREARCC IMPERIAL CORPORATION

DELAWAREARCC IMPERIAL LLC

DELAWAREARCC IMPERIAL POF LLC (F/K/A AMEREX EQUITY LLC)

DELAWAREARCC LVCG INVESTORS LLC

DELAWAREARCC NPA CORP. (F/K/A ARCC PSSI CORP.)

DELAWAREARCC OTG CORP.

DELAWAREARCC PCP L.P.

CAYMAN ISLANDSARCC PCP GP, LLC

DELAWAREARCC S2 LLC (F/K/A AC POSTLE, LLC)

DELAWAREARCC HT CORP. (F/K/A ARCC SAGE INC.)

DELAWAREARCC UNIVERSAL CORP.

DELAWAREARCC PCGI III AIV BLOCKER, INC.

DELAWAREARCC BB CORP.

DELAWAREARCC PJMB LLC

DELAWAREARCC RB LLC

DELAWAREARCC SK BLOCKER CORP.

DELAWAREARCC RH LLC

DELAWAREARCC SC LLC

DELAWAREARES VENTURE FINANCE GP LLC

DELAWAREARES VENTURE FINANCE, L.P.

DELAWAREA.C. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC

DELAWAREAC FINANCE LLC

DELAWAREAC NOTES HOLDINGS LLC

DELAWAREACE PRODUCTS HOLDING CORP.

DELAWAREACGP I, LLC

DELAWAREARCC COVESTIA CORP.

DELAWAREARCC JTC, LLC

DELAWAREARES CAPITAL JB FUNDING LLC

DELAWAREARES CAPITAL CP FUNDING LLC

DELAWAREARES CAPITAL CP FUNDING HOLDINGS LLC

DELAWAREIVY HILL ASSET MANAGEMENT GP, LLC

DELAWARE10TH STREET EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREA.C. CORPORATION

DELAWARE


---



Name

JurisdictionAMP ADMIN LLC

DELAWAREALLBRIDGE EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREALLIED ASSET HOLDINGS LLC

DELAWAREALLIED CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC

DELAWAREALLIED CRESCENT EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREAMEREX EQUITY CORPORATION

DELAWARECALDER CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC

DELAWARECALDER EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARECALDER INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

DELAWARECLEVELAND EAST EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARECRESCENT EQUITY CORP.

DELAWARECRESCENT SLIVER EQUITY LLC

DELAWAREDYNAMIC EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREFINANCIAL PACIFIC COMPANY

WASHINGTONFORESITE EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREGLOBALCOM EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREHCI EQUITY, LLC

ILLINOISIAT EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREMULTIAD EQUITY CORP.

DELAWARENPH, INC.

MARYLANDPCP WILCON HOLDINGS INC.

DELAWAREPCP GHS HOLDINGS INC.

DELAWARERWI, LLC

DELAWARES2 EQUITY CORP.

DELAWARESMF II EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARESLATE EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARESOTERIA MEZZANINE CORPORATION

DELAWARESTAG EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARESTARTEC EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARESUBFRACTIONAL MOTORS, INC.

DELAWARE


In
addition, we may be deemed to control certain portfolio companies identified as "Affiliated" companies that we "Control" in footnote 7 to the Consolidated Schedule of
Investments as of December 31, 2014 included in the Financial Statements portion of Ares Capital Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

---



QuickLinks
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60192

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

JAMES BERNARD LAWSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DENNIS MOLDER and JAMES DAVIS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-cv-366BN

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Lawson appeals the dismissal of his action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous. This court addressed Lawson's

illegal-arrest contention in an earlier case. We determined that

Lawson's illegal-arrest claim called into question the validity

of his conviction and was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct.

2364 (1994). If a claim falls under Heck, a would-be § 1983

plaintiff has no cause of action until he can show that his

conviction has been invalidated. Id. at 2373. 

The use at trial of unreliable identification evidence
No. 95-60192

-2-

obtained by police through unnecessarily suggestive procedures

violates a defendant's right to due process. Neil v. Biggers,

409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972); Passman v. Blackburn, 652 F.2d 559, 569

(5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 (1982). Because

judgment in favor of Lawson on either his illegal-arrest claim or

his tainted-lineup claim would imply the invalidity of his

conviction, the district court properly dismissed those claims

pursuant to Heck.

Pursuant to Heck, district courts should not dismiss

§ 1983 actions for failure to pursue habeas corpus remedies or

stay § 1983 actions for exhaustion of habeas remedies. See Heck,

114 S. Ct. at 2373. Lawson's contention that the district court

should have stayed his lawsuit therefore is without merit.

Lawson seeks release from prison. By his own admission,

Lawson's state post-conviction application for relief was pending

when he filed his complaint. To the extent that Lawson seeks

habeas corpus relief, the district court should have dismissed

his claims without prejudice so that he could exhaust state-law

remedies. McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158,

161 (5th Cir. 1995). We modify the district court's judgment to

operate without prejudice to Lawson's ability to exhaust statelaw remedies and pursue federal habeas corpus remedies. See id. 

We affirm the district court's judgment in all other respects.

Lawson is warned that he will be sanctioned if he files

frivolous appeals in the future. See Smith v. McCleod, 946 F.2d 
No. 95-60192

-3-

417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69

(5th Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Cesar Arce-Hernandez, 

Defendant.

No. CR-16-00061-01-PHX-GMS

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on June 6, 2017. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that he is not a serious flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 8th day of June, 2017. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,765,216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,356,872
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (373,919)
<INVENTORY>                                    743,732
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,591,139
<PP&E>                                         728,180
<DEPRECIATION>                               (386,321)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,167,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,090,632
<BONDS>                                      1,924,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           93,489
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,058,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,167,166
<SALES>                                      2,689,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,689,219
<CGS>                                        1,545,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,066,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,990
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,043,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,043,875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,043,875)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.68)


</TABLE>