alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"FMC July 2023 Activity Report","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"15KiNqEZHq\"><a href=\"\/fmc-july-2023-activity-report\/\">FMC July 2023 Activity Report<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/fmc-july-2023-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=15KiNqEZHq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC July 2023 Activity Report” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"15KiNqEZHq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
EX-35 (h)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

March 23, 2007

Opteum Mortgage Acceptance Corporation

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Opteum Mortgage Acceptance Corporation
Trust 2006-1

Per Section 3.21 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 03/01/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(i)  a review of the activities of each such party during the preceding calendar
     year or portion thereof and of its performance under this Agreement or
     other applicable servicing agreement has been made under such officer's
     supervision and

(ii) to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
     respects throughout such year, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill
     any such obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure
     known to such officer and the nature and status of the cure provisions
     thereof.




Certified By:
/s/ Scott Strack
Scott Strack, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 99 (a)

                               TXU EUROPE LIMITED

                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

     The undersigned, Philip G. Turberville, Chief Executive Officer of TXU
Europe Limited (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

     1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
          30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
          section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
          amended; and

     2.   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
          Company.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 14th day of August, 2002.


                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:   Philip G. Turberville
                                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Life Exchange,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending June 30,2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,David Dorr, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906of 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 the
  Company.














/s/ DavidDorr


Dorr


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer





September
26, 2008
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10488

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARK JULIAN EDMONDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CR-370-1-T

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

March 13, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Julian Edmonds appeals his conviction for being a felon

in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court erred in denying

his motion to suppress and in denying his motions to dismiss the

superseding indictment as the result of vindictive prosecution

and as multiplicitous, respectively.

The district court did not err in denying the motion to

suppress because the search of Edmonds’ bag was done incident to

his arrest and because the bag was in Edmonds’ immediate area of
No. 00-10488

-2-

control at the time of the arrest. See New York v. Belton, 453

U.S. 454, 460-62 (1981); United States v. Prudhome, 13 F.3d 147,

148-49 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Tellez, 11 F.3d

530, 532 (5th Cir. 1993). 

The district court likewise did not err in denying the

motion to dismiss for vindictiveness because Edmonds has not

attempted to demonstrate any vindictiveness on the federal

prosecutor’s part and has not challenged the district court’s

finding that any vindictiveness on the state prosecutor’s part

was irrelevant to the instant case. See Yohey v. Collins, 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, even if it is

assumed that counts one and two of the superseding indictment

were multiplicitous, any error arising out of the district

court’s denial of Edmonds’ motion to dismiss was harmless because

he was acquitted of one of the allegedly multiplicitous counts. 

See United States v. Nguyen, 28 F.3d 477, 482 (5th Cir. 1994). 

The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED. 

Edmonds’ motion for leave to file a supplemental pro se brief is

DENIED. See 5th Cir. R. 28.7.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
#### JIN ZAI CHEN, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-60532

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 16, 2008.

Liu Yu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, John Clifford Cunningham, Edward C. Durant, Remi Adalemo, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, for Respondent.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jin Zai Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the *420Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. When, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. *See Mikhael v. INS,*115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997).

Chen argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by the record. Chen further argues that he was not provided with a meaningful opportunity to rebut or address the IJ’s credibility concerns.

Contrary to Chen’s assertions, our review of the record establishes that the IJ’s findings that Chen’s testimony is incredible is substantially supported by the record. None of Chen’s arguments compel this court to substitute its judgment for that of the IJ. *See Chun v. INS,*40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). Without credible evidence, the IJ had no grounds to grant Chen asylum or withholding of removal. *Id.*at 79. The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *420the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2788 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the 

cap on full-time employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who provide equal employment opportunity 

counseling. 

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

•HR 2788 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘VA Equal Employment 

3 Opportunity Counselor Modernization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES 

5 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF6 FAIRS WHO PROVIDE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

7 OPPORTUNITY COUNSELING. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 516 of title 38, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) by striking subsection (g); and 

11 (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as sub12 section (g). 

13 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the date 

14 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 

15 Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Af16 fairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 

17 regarding the effect of the amendment under subsection 

18 (a). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 18, 2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2788 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate 

ment opportunity counseling. of Veterans Affairs who provide equal employthe cap on full-time employees of the Department
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencyShares® Swiss Franc Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Nick Bonos, Chief Executive Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended;
and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Trust.

Date: January 14, 2011



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ NICK BONOS               
|Nick Bonos*                  
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Nick Bonos is signing in his capacity as the principal executive officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents

Exhibit 15.2 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

            We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form****F-3 of TAM S.A. (File No. 333-147020), TAM Linhas  Aéreas S.A. (File No. 333-147020-01) and TAM Capital Inc. (File No.  333-147020-02), of our report dated  June 29th, 2009 relating to the  financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial  reporting, which is incorporated in the Form 20-F of TAM S.A., TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. and TAM Capital  Inc. (together, “**TAM**”) for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “**2008****20-F**”). 

São Paulo, Brazil 

June 29th, 2009

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers  PricewaterhouseCoopersAuditores Independentes

/s/ Carlos Alberto de SousaCarlos Alberto de SousaCRC 1RJ 056561/O-0"S" SP

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher M. HANSEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-56011.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, *2008:****

Filed May 6, 2008.

*693David I. Pincus, Esq., Curtis C. Pett, Esq., Andrea R. Tebbets, Esq., Richard Morrison, Martin M. Shoemaker, United Stated Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Christopher M. Hansen, pro se.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher M. Hansen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States in its action brought under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7408 to enjoin Hansen from promoting, selling, and otherwise furthering tax avoidance schemes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the grant of an injunction, *United States v. Estate Pres. Servs.,*202 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir.2000), and de novo the grant of summary judgment, *Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist.,*306 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because Hansen failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the tax avoidance plans that he sold on two websites constituted conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6700 or 6701. Accordingly, because the statutory requirements were met, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting injunctive relief to the United States. *See Estate Pres. Servs.,*202 F.3d at 1098 (explaining that an injunction should be granted if statutory requirements are met).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Hansen’s affidavit in opposition to summary judgment because Hansen refused to testify about the subject matter of the affidavit at his deposition, and failed to appear at a subsequent deposition after being warned that his continued refusal to testify would result in sanctions, including exclusion of evidence. *See Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. o. Bulkin Enters., Inc.,*397 F.3d 1217, 1224 n. 4 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by granting motion to strike).

Hansen’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

The government’s motion for sanctions of $8,000 for pursuing a frivolous appeal is granted. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R.App. P. 38; *Wilcox v. Cmnmissioner,*848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir.1988) (awarding sanctions against pro se litigant for arguing that wages are not income and payment of taxes is voluntary); *see also Becraft v. Nelson (In re Becraft),*885 F.2d 547, 549 n. 2 (9th Cir.1989) (order) (award *694ing sanctions against appellant for arguing that the authority of the United States to tax its citizens is confined to the District of Columbia).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"FMC\u2019s Supply Chain Innovation Teams Launched Today","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"abh0mH45DF\"><a href=\"\/fmcs-supply-chain-innovation-teams-launched-today\/\">FMC\u2019s Supply Chain Innovation Teams Launched Today<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/fmcs-supply-chain-innovation-teams-launched-today\/embed\/#?secret=abh0mH45DF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC\u2019s Supply Chain Innovation Teams Launched Today” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"abh0mH45DF\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
EX-35 (c)
(logo) CHASE


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


RE: J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust (JPALT) 2006-A1: The Pooling and
        Servicing Agreement by and among JPMorgan Accpt Corp I as Depositor,
        JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA as Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association as
        Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer, JPMorgan Chase & Co
        as Assignor, J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp as Assignor, JPMorgan
        Accpt Corp I as Assignee, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Servicer,
        JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA as Custodian (the "Agreement")

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, as servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the J.P. Morgan
Alternative Loan Trust (JPALT) 2006-Al (The "Agreement"), does hereby
certify that:

        (1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year
ending December 31, 2006 and of the performance of the Servicer under
the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

        (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such year.


Date: 02/28/2007


JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association,
as Servicer


By: /s/ David Lowman
Name: David Lowman
Title: Executive Vice President
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00398-CV

JOSEPH E. MCCLAIN III

v.

DELL, INC. AND SEATON CORP. D/B/A STAFF MANAGEMENT

On appeal from the

201st District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-1-GN-13-000356

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 26, 2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1076

PATRICIA T. PATTERSON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DAVID BENSON; LUTHER ELROD; THOMAS POPE; JACK LEADER; HAROLD 

STALEY,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (0:09-cv-02478-MBS)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia T. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Arlen Cotter, 

Jr., Whitney Allison Smith, Mason Abram Summers, RICHARDSON, 

PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Patricia T. Patterson appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Patterson v. Benson, No. 0:09-cv-02478-MBS (D.S.C. 

Dec. 18, 2009). Additionally, we deny Patterson’s motion for 

default judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 11.0
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         PULASKI BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                                 STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




                                                                      Nine Months Ended            Three Months Ended
                                                                     September 30, 2000            September 30, 2000
                                                                     ------------------            ------------------

<S>                                                                     <C>                             <C>
Net income                                                              $ 1,434,860                     $ 467,153

Weighted average shares outstanding - basic and diluted                   1,934,647                     1,920,372

Basic and diluted earnings per share                                         $ 0.74                        $ 0.24





</TABLE>

                                       15