alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Per the court’s December 15, 2020 minute entry (Dkt. 19), the parties in this Freedom of 

Information Act case jointly submit this status report.

1. The court has become familiar with the two counts in this case. Count I is the 

traditional FOIA count in which plaintiff Jackie Stevens seeks documents responsive to her FOIA 

requests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Count II is the “pattern or practice” count that

has given rise to a dispute between the parties about the propriety of discovery. 

2. Defendants’ position on Count I: Regarding Count I, since the most recent 

hearing on December 14, 2020, ICE has made two additional productions of documents responsive 

to Stevens’s FOIA requests. The first production contained 241 pages of responsive records plus 

3 Microsoft Excel files, and the second production contained 431 pages of responsive records. 

Additional records are forthcoming, including an anticipated 500-page production later this month. 

Since this lawsuit was filed, ICE has produced 1,702 pages of responsive records (522 pages in 

October 2020, 510 pages in November 2020, and 672 pages in January 2021).

JACQUELINE STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20 C 2725

Judge Rowland

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/19/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:143
2

3. Plaintiff’s position on Count I: Count I pertains to six FOIA requests filed in 2018 

and 2019. Because Defendants deliberately refused to search, process. and produce responsive 

documents even after administrative appeals were remanded, Plaintiff was forced to file this civil 

action hoping to obtain the responsive records. This case was filed on 5-5-2020 and as usual 

Defendants are slow-walking production hoping that this will turn in yet another FOIA case that 

drags for 3-6 years with Defendants producing few hundred pages every four to eight months. 

Despite the fact that this case includes probably thousands of time-sensitive responsive documents,

to date – eight months after filing—Defendants have produced fewer than 1200 pages. Plaintiffs 

respectfully requests that the Court issue an order directing Defendants to complete the entire 

production of documents by 30 May 2021.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/19/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:144
3

4. Regarding Count II, the question of whether Stevens is entitled to discovery has 

been fully briefed. Dkt. 16, 20-21.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr.

United States Attorney

By: s/ Alex Hartzler 

ALEX HARTZLER

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 886-1390

alex.hartzler@usdoj.gov

s/ Nicolette Glazer

NICOLETTE GLAZER

Attorney for Plaintiff

Law Office of Larry R. Glazer

Watt Plaza

1875 Century Park East #700

Century City, California 90067

(708) 435-0404

nicolette@glazerandglazer.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 22 Filed: 02/19/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:145
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jason Michael Badyrka v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00643

- CR

Trial court case number: 20

- CR

- 2912

Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County



### Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting (1) a copy of the appellate

record and (2) an extension of time to file his brief until 30 days after receiving the record.

We grant the motion and order the trial court clerk, no la ter than 10 days from the date of

this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s

record, and any supplemental records, to appellant. The trial court clerk shall further certify

to this Court, within 1 5 days of the date of this order, the date upon which delivery of the

record to the appellant is made.

Appellant’s brief is due within 40 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

____ Acting individually

Date: ___ October 4, 2022

_____
#### Thompson *v.*Coquillard, in Error.

DEBT by *Alexis Coquillard,*for the use of *Isaac Marquiss,*against *Lewis G. Thompson, on*a promissory note in the following words: — “Due *Alexis Coquillard*or order 212 dollars, for value *received.*— L. *G.*Thompson.” There was on the note the following assignment: — “Pay the within to *Isaac Marquiss.— A.*Coquillard.” The note was filed, under the statute, instead of a declaration.

A plea in abatement, for a variance between the writ and note as the declaration, was filed'; the writ being against *Lewis G. Thompson,*and the note against *L. G. Thompson.*Demurrer to the plea and judgment of *respondeos ouster.*Demurrer to the note as a declaration, and judgment for the plaintiff below.

*Qucsre,*whether the note in this case could be filed as a declaration, the Christian name of the defendant not being shown by it; or whether, if the note could be so filed, an explanation of the name should not appear in the writ. See *Hays et al.*v. *Lanier et al., November*term, 1833 (1).

As the note in this case was assigned to *Marquiss,*and the assignment remained uncancelled, it was held that the suit on the note could not be sustained in *Coquillard’s*name, without showing that it was his property notwithstanding the assignment. Ne*yfong*v. *Wells,*Harden’s Rep. *561.*—Bowie, for the use of *Ladd,*v. *Duvall,*1 Gill & Johns. 175.—See, also, *Dugan*v. *The United States,*3 Wheat. 172.

*438*H. Cooper,*for the plaintiff.

*D. H. Colerick,*for the defendant.

(1)

 Ante, p. 322. Vide *Hughes*v. *Walker, Carter & Co, May*term, 1835, post.

The judgment was reversed with costs.
Case: 1:20-cv-01838 Document #: 2 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:2
Case: 1:20-cv-01838 Document #: 2 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:3
Case: 1:20-cv-01838 Document #: 2 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:4
Case: 1:20-cv-01838 Document #: 2 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:5
#### GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 77-1706.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 14, 1980.

Michael J. Connolly, General Motors Corp., Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

*968Elliott Moore, Jay Shanklin, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Michael Murchison, Washington, D. C., Emil C. Farkas, Director Region 9, N. L. R. B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.

Before BROWN, KENNEDY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER.

General Motors Corporation (GM) petitions for review of a decision and order of the NLRB. The NLRB has filed a cross-petition for enforcement of its order. The NLRB held that GM violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (3), by suspending a union district committeeman for his use of the grievance procedure. The NLRB ordered GM to cease and desist its violations of the Act and to make the committeeman whole for any loss of earnings from his suspension.*

GM argues that the union committeeman abused the grievance procedure by taking too much time discussing the grievance with the grievant and by refusing to comply with a request that he submit this dispute on abuse of the procedure to the grievance procedure. The sole issue in this case is whether substantial evidence supports the NLRB’s decision and order. Upon review of the entire record and careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, we hold that substantial evidence does support the NLRB’s decision and order.

Accordingly, the NLRB’s order is enforced.

*

*General Motors v. NLRB.*Its decision is reported at 233 N.L.R.B. No. 13 (1977).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Women of Color: Pioneers and Innovators","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xIyELH4LH4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/women-of-color-pioneers-and-innovators\/\">Women of Color: Pioneers and Innovators<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/women-of-color-pioneers-and-innovators\/embed\/#?secret=xIyELH4LH4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Women of Color: Pioneers and Innovators” — NASA\" data-secret=\"xIyELH4LH4\" 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\/02\/edu_srch_women_of_color_and_innovators_lithograph1.png?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":259}
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTRED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration
Statements Nos. 333-139703 and 333-140787 on Form S-8 of St Bernard Software,
Inc. (the “Company”) of our report dated March 10, 2009, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007, included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 11, 2009.








/s/
Squar, Milner, Peterson, Miranda & Williamson, LLP





San
Diego, California


March 13,
2009
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Abby Tabor","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/astabor\/","title":"Study Reveals Map of Moon\u2019s Water Near Its South Pole","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xoyWXbRjB2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/solar-system\/study-reveals-map-of-moons-water-near-its-south-pole\/\">Study Reveals Map of Moon\u2019s Water Near Its South Pole<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/solar-system\/study-reveals-map-of-moons-water-near-its-south-pole\/embed\/#?secret=xoyWXbRjB2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Study Reveals Map of Moon\u2019s Water Near Its South Pole” — NASA\" data-secret=\"xoyWXbRjB2\" 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\/03\/sofia.0315.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 15 6 . LEVI ADAM HULSEY v . THE STATE.

Th e ap p eal o f t h e ab o v e-referen ced cas e w as do ck et ed o n Sep t em b er 2 1

, 2 0 1 5,

an d t h e ap p el l an t was n o t i fi ed t h at hi s e n u m e r a t i o n s of erro r an d b ri ef were d u e

wi t h i n 20 d ay s of d o ck et i n g ( i .e., b y Oct o b er 1 3, 2 0 1 5 ). A s o f Oc t o b e r 2 1

, 2 0 1 5,

ap p el l an t h ad fai l ed t o fi le h i s en u m erat io n s o f erro r an d bri ef an d h ad n o t m o v ed fo r

an ex t en s i o n of t im e i n wh i ch t o fi l e. Acco rd i n g l y

, t h i s Co u rt d irect ed ap pel l an t t o fi l e

h i s en u m erat i o n s o f er r o r a n d b ri ef w it h i n 1 0 d ay s an d n o t i fi ed ap p el l an t t h at t h e

fai l u re t o d o s o wo u l d res u l t i n th e d i s m i s s al o f th e ap p eal

. S ee La mb r o s v. Lo n g i o t t i

,

1 8 9 Ga. Ap p

. 83 7 ( 3 7 8 S E 2 d 41 6 ) (1 9 8 9 ). Th e 1 0 day s hav e co m e an d g o n e, an d

ap p el l an t h as f

a i l e d t o f i l e a b ri ef as o rd ered b y t hi s Co u rt

. Th us

, t h i s ap p eal i s

DI SM I SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/20/2015 November 20, 2015
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michelle M. Lantow, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the amended Report on Form 10-K/A of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood
Restaurants, Inc. for the annual period ended December 26, 2009 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ MICHELLE M. LANTOW 
|Michelle M. Lantow     
|Chief Financial Officer

Dated: August 20, 2010
#### C. B. Sanders *v.*William Hyfield.

Officers — Town Marshal — Salary—Attachment.

The salary of a town marshal is not subject to attachment on a return of no property found.

APPEAL PROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 21, 1869.

Opinion op the Court by

Judg-e Peters :

Appellee, a creditor of appellant, with an execution against his estate, and a return of no property found, sought by this proceeding to subject a portion of his salary due to him from the board of trustees of Nicholasville for his services as marshal of said toyvn *41to tbe satisfaction of tbe debt, and tbe only question in tbe case is can tbis claim under *See. 474, Civil Code,*be subjected in eqüity to tbe payment of said debt.

*Messiah, for appellant.*

*Brown & Pryor, for appellee.*

Tbis case in analogy, and principle, is tbe same as tbe cases of *Webb v. McCauley, 3 Bush, 8,*and *Divine v. Harvie, 7 Mon., 439,*and for tbe reasons therein stated tbe claim, or demand of appellant is not liable to attachment, and appropriation as sought to be made.

Wherefore, tbe judgment is *reversed,*and tbe cause remanded, with directions to dismiss appellee’s petition so far as it seeks tbe unpaid salary of appellant as marshal of said town to be applied to tbe payment of bis debt and for further proceedings not inconsistent with tbis opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 202 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 30, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2015) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998. All points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read. The conference report shall be 
debatable for ninety minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

OUYEINC LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 20-cv-03491 

v. 

INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND 

Judge John Virginia M. Kendall 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Finnegan 

ON SCHEDULE "A" ' 

Defendants. 

Declaration of Rongji Ge 

I, Rongji Ge, declare and state as follows: 

1. This declaration is based upon my personal knowledge of the facts stated herein or on

business records that were made at the time or in the regular course of business. If called

2. 

as a witness, I could and would testify to the statements made herein.

I am the owner and operator of Ouyeinc Ltd. ("Ouyeinc") of {P/J,q� , USA, where

I have worked since "2,,,,o/ i . I am knowledgeable about or have access to business

records concerning all aspects of the brand protection operation of Ouyeinc Ltd, 

including, but not limited to, its patents, trademarks, copyright�

, other intellectual 

property, sales, online sales, advertising, marketing, media coverage, and associated 

international operations. J make this declaration from matters within my own knowledge 

save where otherwise stated. 

3. Ouyeinc is a worldwide leader in the business of developing, marketing, selling and

distributing wax warmers.

Case: 1:20-cv-03491 Document #: 37-1 Filed: 08/03/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:203
4. Ouyeinc also uses Ouyeinc's registered patent and trademarks (the "Pro-Wax I 00" marks

on and in connection with the creation and distribution of its wax warmer products.

5. Ouyeinc's Pro-Wax l 00 family of products has achieved substantial commercial success.

Worldwide retail sales now exceed US$20,000,000 per year worldwide since 2017.

Ouyeinc's Pro-Waxl 00 brand has established itself as the best-selling wax warmer brand

in the U.S. by unit volume in the measured home spa beauty market. Millions of dollars'

worth of Ouyeinc's Pro-Wax JOO family of products have been sold to United States

residents through various online marketplaces.

6. In Illinois alone, many Pro-Waxl00 products have been sold to Illinois residents through

online retailers.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this -3}_ day of August 2020

Case: 1:20-cv-03491 Document #: 37-1 Filed: 08/03/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:204
No. 15,963.

#### Williams et al. *v.*The State.

Filed March 18, 1891.

Supreme *Court.*— Practice.—No question is presented on the ruling of the trial court in excluding, in a prosecution for rape, a report made by the grand jury where the report is not embodied in the bill of exceptions.

From the De Kalb Circuit Court.

*L. J. Blair*and *W. H. Dills,*for appellants.

A. *G. Smith,*Attorney General, and *E. A. Bratton,*for the State.

Elliott, J.

The appellants were convicted of the crime of rape, and from the judgment entered against them they prosecute this appeal.

It is asserted that the trial court erred in excluding a report made by the gránd jury, but the report is not embodied in the bill of exceptions, and hence no question is presented upon the ruling. In the absence of the document we can not say that it was competent, but must presume that it was incompetent. An appellant who seeks a reversal must overcome the-presumption which always prevails in favor of the rulings of the trial court in the absence of countervailing facts.

We have given the evidence careful study, and find that it so far and sufficiently supports the verdict that we can not disturb it.

Judgment affirmed.

McBride, J., did not take part in the decision of this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TOM'S FOODS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 28,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                           2,212
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,606
<INVENTORY>                                     11,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,108
<PP&E>                                          87,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,082
<BONDS>                                         70,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,339
<PREFERRED>                                     22,708
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,600
<SALES>                                         45,656
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,656
<CGS>                                           28,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,575)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,690)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,690)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>