alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dezmend Rashawn DOWEARY, a/k/a Hit, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6903.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 3, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 23, 2011.

Dezmend Rashawn Doweary, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dezmend Rashawn Doweary seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Doweary has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *328and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00651-CV

Lawrence Brandon Erlanson, Individually, and as Independent Executor of the Estate of 

Freddie Lindsay Erlanson, Appellant

v.

Teresa Erlanson, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. 2021PC0278, THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

This cause was abated by opinion dated November 18, 2022, and that abatement 

was extended by opinion dated December 23, 2022. Appellant has filed a status report and a 

motion to extend the abatement until March 30, 2023 to allow Appellant to effectuate the terms 

of the parties’ settlement. We grant the motion and extend the abatement of this appeal. By 

March 30, 2023, the parties shall file a motion to dismiss this appeal, a motion to continue the 

abatement, a status report, or other appropriate motion; otherwise, this appeal will be reinstated.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith

Filed: March 10, 2023

Abated on Joint Motion
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7441

CHARLES MASON JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections; DAVID L. GRAHAM, Assistant Warden;

SAMUEL L. BATTS, Assistant Warden; CAPTAIN

BRUCE; JOHN B. METZGER, III, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; FRED W. GREENE, Warden;

SERGEANT WINCKLER; C. TAYLOR, Treatment

Supervisor; NURSE HARRIS; DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-195)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Mason Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones

v. Angelone, No. CA-95-195 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1996). 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
#### David Donald DU VALL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOWES COMPANIES INC., a corporation; Robert A. Niblock, CEO, Chairman; Dennis R. Knowles, Store Operation, South Central; Jeff Dix, manager, Shoal Creek Warehouse; John Doe I, assistant manager; Chris Doe II, subordinate employee; Gary Hicks, manager, Ranch Road Warehouse; John Doe III, senior employee, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-51405

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 16, 2008.

David D. Du Vail, Austin, TX, pro se.

Shannon Brown Sehmoyer, Christine Elaine Reinhard, Sehmoyer Reinhard, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Lowes Companies Inc., a Corporation.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*400PER CURIAM: *

For the reasons stated in the district court’s order, we affirm the judgment that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Lowe’s Companies, Inc. With respect to the argument that the district court should have granted Plaintiff an opportunity for discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, we deem that argument waived because Plaintiff never requested any such relief before the district court. *See Tex. Commercial Energy v. TXU Energy, Inc.,*413 F.3d 503, 510 (5th Cir.2005) (recognizing that arguments not raised before the district court are waived on appeal). Finally, with respect to the district court’s orders dismissing the remaining defendants, we do not have appellate jurisdiction to review those orders because they were not included in the notice of appeal and, indeed, were issued *after*Plaintiff filed the instant notice of appeal. *See Pope v. MCI Telecomm. Corp.,*937 F.2d 258, 266 (5th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph Leif KILFOIL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4691.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 14, 2011.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Randolph Leif Kilfoil entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), reserving his right to challenge the district court’s denial of his *349motion to suppress the firearm at issue. The district court sentenced him to eighty-five months’ imprisonment. We affirm.

Appellate counsel contends that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the officers lacked a reasonable suspicion to seize Kilfoil and improperly entered the residence without a warrant or probable cause. We review the factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and the court’s legal conclusions de novo. *United States v. Branch,*537 F.3d 328, 337 (4th Cir.2008). The evidence is “construed in the light most favorable to the Government, the prevailing party below.” *United States v. Uzenski,*434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir.2006).

With these standards in mind, we have considered carefully the arguments raised by Kilfoil on appeal and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that the court properly denied the motion to suppress. *United States v. Kilfoil,*No. 1:09-cr-271-1, 2009 WL 4282754 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2009). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court entered on June 18, 2010. 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*
#### Arthur W. MASSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-1933.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 25, 2013.

Arthur W. Massey, Appellant pro se.

*209Hugh Dun Rappaport, Social Security Administration, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur W. Massey appeals the district court order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision finding Massey ineligible for Social Security Income (SSI) payments as of September 2009, because he acquired non-home real properties that increased his creditable resources above the limit for SSI eligibility. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.*
      *Massey v. Colvin,*No. 3:12-cv-00385-MOC, 2013 WL 3776484 (W.D.N.C. July 17, 2013). We deny Massey’s motion to reinstate SSI payments. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

While Massey appears to assert on appeal that the agency improperly refused to approve a plan to achieve self-support ("PASS”) that would allow him to exclude the challenged properties from his resources determination, Massey did not fairly raise this issue before the district court, where he argued that he had received the properties as part of a PASS. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (declining to consider issues raised for first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances). In any event, the record provides no indication that Massey ever submitted a PASS to the Social Security Administration or that he meets the requirements to qualify for a PASS. *See*20 C.F.R. § 416.1226 (2013) (requirements for PASS).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

s1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145574

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145574

COA: 310533

Genesee CC: 11-029187-FC

LEMONT JAMES HOPKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
{"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":"Commissioner Dye Addresses Agricultural Transportation Coalition Annual Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0yDI72vnoU\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-dye-addresses-agricultural-transportation-coalition-annual-meeting\/\">Commissioner Dye Addresses Agricultural Transportation Coalition Annual Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-dye-addresses-agricultural-transportation-coalition-annual-meeting\/embed\/#?secret=0yDI72vnoU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Dye Addresses Agricultural Transportation Coalition Annual Meeting” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"0yDI72vnoU\" 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"}
Document

Exhibit 10.5










PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL




To: Mr. Drago AZINOVIC                                                                           Lausanne, February 27, 2017


Subject: Merit Increase     




Dear Drago,


Further to your annual performance assessment we confirm that your 2017 merit increase amounts to 2.42%. 


As a result of this increase, effective April 1, 2017, the following conditions of your employment have been modified according to the information detailed below:


Gross Base Salary: CHF 845’000.-- annually, CHF 65’000.-- monthly 


Comparatio: 94%


All other conditions relating to your employment with Philip Morris International Management SA remain as stated in your employment contract and in any subsequent amendments.


We would like to take this opportunity to wish you continued success and satisfaction.






 			
	Yours sincerely,

	/s/ RALF ZYSK
	Ralf Zysk
	Vice President Compensation & Benefits
	and International Assignments PMI




Avenue de Rhodanie 50, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland  T:+41 (58) 242 00 00, F: +41 (58) 242 01 11
{"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":"Commission Names Secretary & Director of Enforcement","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"43jt4FHahH\"><a href=\"\/commission-names-secretary-director-of-enforcement\/\">Commission Names Secretary & Director of Enforcement<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-names-secretary-director-of-enforcement\/embed\/#?secret=43jt4FHahH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Names Secretary & Director of Enforcement” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"43jt4FHahH\" 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"}
{"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":"Aviso al Consumidor \u2013 Transporte Medrano d\/b\/a Medrano Express","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YDm2Avwn9p\"><a href=\"\/aviso-al-consumidor-transporte-medrano-d-b-a-medrano-express\/\">Aviso al Consumidor \u2013 Transporte Medrano d\/b\/a Medrano Express<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/aviso-al-consumidor-transporte-medrano-d-b-a-medrano-express\/embed\/#?secret=YDm2Avwn9p\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Aviso al Consumidor \u2013 Transporte Medrano d\/b\/a Medrano Express” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"YDm2Avwn9p\" 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"}
EXHIBIT 13.1

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederico Pinheiro Fleury Curado, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 29, 2010



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Frederico Pinheiro Fleury Curado 
|    |  | Frederico Pinheiro Fleury Curado     
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001088788
<NAME> EPILOGUE CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5000000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0



</TABLE>