alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

September 18, 2013

s0911 

# Order

Clerk September 18, 2013

146699

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146699

COA: 310127

Hillsdale CC: 11

- 352663

- FH

JIM CLARENCE LUTZ, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Hillsdale Circuit Court, and

we REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court articulated

substantial and compelling reasons to s upport a departure from the presumed applicable

sentencing guidelines range; however, zero points should have been scored for Offense

Variables 1 and 2 because the methamphetamine in this case was not used or possessed

as a weapon. See MCL 777.31(1), MCL 777.32(1), and People v Ball , 297 Mich App

121 (2012). The resulting change in the defendant’s total OV score produces a lower

guidelines range, and he is therefore entitled to resentencing. See People v Francisco

, 474 Mich 82 (2006). On remand, should the trial court decide to again depart from the

corrected sentencing guidelines range, it shall articulate a rationale justifying the extent

of the particular departure. See People v Smith , 482 Mich 292 (2008).
Exhibit 32.2

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

PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Douglas Shepard, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Harte-Hanks, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Company fully complies with the requirements of those sections.

I further
certify that, based on my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|              |  |                                                     
|------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|March 2, 2011 |  | /s/ Douglas Shepard                                 
|Date          |  | Douglas Shepard                                     
|              |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Note: This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 902.2 Raising disputes. ( a ) Cognizable disputes may be based upon: ( 1 ) A claim that the Council has misinterpreted the Compact or one of the Council's rules or standards established under Article VI of the Compact;
( 2 ) A claim that the Council has exceeded its authority under the Compact;
( 3 ) A claim that in establishing a rule or standard or in taking other action, the Council has failed to comply with its bylaws or other applicable procedures established by the Council; or the rule, standard or action is not otherwise in accordance with applicable law; or
( 4 ) A claim by a Compact Party that another Compact Party has failed to comply with a provision of the Compact or with any rule or standard established by the Council.
( b ) Only a Party State, the FBI, or a person, organization, or government entity directly aggrieved by the Council's interpretation of the Compact or any rule or standard established by the Council pursuant to the Compact, or in connection with a matter covered under Section 902.2(a)(4), may raise a cognizable dispute. Such disputants may request a hearing on a dispute by contacting the Compact Council Chairman in writing at the Compact Council Office, Module C3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306.
( c ) The Chairman may ask the requester for more particulars, supporting documentation or materials as the circumstances warrant.
( d ) A dispute may not be based solely upon a disagreement with the merits (substantive wisdom or advisability) of a rule or standard validly established by the Council within the scope of its authority under the Compact. However, nothing in this rule prohibits further discussion of the merits of a rule or standard at any regularly scheduled Council meeting.
§ 140.904 Reimbursement basis. ( a ) *General.* On projects involving the elimination of hazards of railroad-highway crossings, and on other projects where a railroad company is not obligated to move or to change its facilities at its own expense, reimbursement will be made for the costs incurred by the State in making changes to railroad facilities as required in connection with a Federal-aid highway project, in accordance with the provisions of this subpart.
( b ) *Eligibility.* To be eligible, the costs must be: ( 1 ) For work which is included in an approved statewide transportation improvement program.
( 2 ) Incurred subsequent to the date of authorization by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
( 3 ) Incurred in accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR, part 646, subpart B, and
( 4 ) Properly attributable to the project.
[40 FR 16057, Apr. 9, 1975, as amended at 53 FR 18276, May 23, 1988; 62 FR 45328, Aug. 27, 1997]
#### § 1210.8 Period of availability of subsequently apportioned funds.

Funds apportioned pursuant to § 1210.7 will remain available for expenditure until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the funds are apportioned.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 4 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 4

     Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.J. Res. 31.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2019

  Mr. Shelby submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.J. Res. 31.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the joint resolution H.J. Res. 31, the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives shall amend the long title so as to 
read: ``Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 94.32 Application deadline.

For claims related to acts of international terrorism that occurred after October 6, 2006, the deadline to file an application is three years from the date of the act of international terrorism. For claims related to acts of international terrorism that occurred between December 21, 1988, and October 6, 2006, the deadline to file an application is October 6, 2009. At the discretion of the Director, the deadline for filing a claim may be tolled or extended upon a showing of good cause.

[76 FR 19910, Apr. 11, 2011]
#### Henry Hendrickson, Respondent, v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Company, Appellant, and United Port Service, Inc., Defendant, Respondent-Appellant.

*673No opinion. Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Cars-well, Johnston and Adel, JJ.
§ 83.225 What actions must I take concerning employees who are convicted of drug violations in the workplace? There are two actions you must take if an employee is convicted of a drug violation in the workplace: ( a ) First, you must notify Federal agencies if an employee who is engaged in the performance of an award informs you about a conviction, as required by § 83.205(c)(2), or you otherwise learn of the conviction. Your notification to the Federal agencies must— ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Include the employee's position title;
( 3 ) Include the identification number(s) of each affected award;
( 4 ) Be sent within ten calendar days after you learn of the conviction; and
( 5 ) Be sent to every Federal agency on whose award the convicted employee was working. It must be sent to every awarding official or his or her official designee, unless the Federal agency has specified a central point for the receipt of the notices.
( b ) Second, within 30 calendar days of learning about an employee's conviction, you must either— ( 1 ) Take appropriate personnel action against the employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), as amended; or
( 2 ) Require the employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for these purposes by a Federal, State or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.
# Jf**ourtl) Court** **of Sppeate** **iz>an Sntonto,** **TKexas July** **30,2014**

### No.**04-13-00518-CVand 04-13-00875-CV** **Sandra Garza** **Davis Ck/a** **Sandra C.** **Saks and** **Landen Saks,** **Appellants v.** **Lauren Saks** **Merriman, Appellee** **Trial Court** **Case No.** **201 l-PC-3466** 

### ORDER**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this** **appeal and** **has determined** **that oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid it** **in determining** **the legal** **and factual** **issues presented** **in the** **appeal. See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Therefore, all** **requests for** **oral argument** **are denied,** **and the** 

### cause**is advanced** **for ON** **BRIEFS submission** **on September** **9, 2014,** **to the** **following panel:** **Chief Justice** **Stone, Justice** **Angelini, and** **Justice Martinez.** **All parties will** **be notified** **of the** **Court's decision** **in this** **appeal in** **accordance with** **Tex. R.** **App. P.** **48. Either** **party may** **file motion** **requesting the** **Court to** **reconsider its** **determination that** 

### oral**argument will** **not significantly** **aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Such motion** **should be** **filed within** **ten (10)** **days from** **the date** **of this** **order. It** **is so** **ORDERED on** **July 30,2014.** **\A/U, Camerine/Stone,** **Chief Justice** 

## IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/fixed the** **seal o/the** **said court** **on this** **July 30,** **2014.**
OAR Box 1415 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

26) IV-H-7 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/15/2008 9:38:26 AM Sheet 26 of 130 

p.1 
P.2 

A-W-sz. 

N-M-7 

"Bromberg, Kevin L." 

<kevin.bromberg@sba 

.gov> 

02/03/2003 09:49 AM 

To: '"Bryon P._Allen@omb.eop.gov"' <Bryon_P. Allen@omb.eop.gov>, 

Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

Subject: RE: Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP - Proposed Suggestion 

12 Feet Dimension -

I've sent both of you faxes from Noble Composites that contradict the one 

plant that EPA says can make 100% capture and control for large parts. The 

gel coat spray booth can do so, but not the laminate booth. Every motor 

vehicle sidewall must go through both booths, and therefore this plant 

cannot do 100% capture. Many of the parts in the industry list, for which 

ACMA says 100% capture is not feasible, would be captured by EPA's latest 

approach. 

Keith, for what plant, if any, can EPA demonstrate 100% capture and control? 

What is the EPA's basis for the suggested dimensions below? 

If there is no further evidence, I suspect that the only number supported by 

the record is ACMA's proposal to define "small open molded parts" with no 

dimension greater than 12 feet. If EPA has no record support for another 

dimension, or definition, the 12 foot dimension reasonably well captures big 

facilities that specialize in small parts, and are reasonably expected to be 

able to design in a 100% capture system, because it does not have the 

diversity of parts that many facilities have, who cannot design in such a 

system. 

Let's see if we can wrap this up quickly 

Kevin 

Original Message 

From: Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov [mailto:Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:06 PM 

To: kevin.bromberg@sba.gov 

Subject: Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP 

KevinHere is EPA's position on reinforced plastics. Any thoughts? 

Bryon 

04:57 PM 

Forwarded by Bryon P. Allen/OMB/EOP on 01/30/2003 

" I 

EPA AIR DOCKf*
Exhibit 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 13, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Analex Corporation and
subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, in the following Registration Statements:



|1. |  | Registration Statement Number 333-37059 (Hadron, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan) on Form S-8
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | Registration Statement Number 333-42035 (Hadron, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan) on Form S-8
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. |  | Registration Statement Number 333-96297 (Hadron, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan) on Form S-8
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. |  | Registration Statement Number 333-96299 (Hadron, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan) on Form S-8
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|5. |  | Registration Statement Number 333-60440 (Hadron, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan) on Form S-8
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|6. |  | Registration Statement Number 333-60442 (Hadron, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan) on Form S-8.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



McLean, Virginia

March 29, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-10005

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Vanous, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:21-CR-61-1

Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Vanous

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Counsel attempted to mail a copy of his Anders brief to 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10005 Document: 00516512092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2022
No. 22-10005

2

Vanous as well, but it’s not clear from the record if counsel mailed it to the 

correct address. Counsel sent the brief to Vanous’s address of record, a 

facility in Texas. But at some unknown point, Vanous was transferred to an 

institution in Oklahoma. Upon learning of the change in address, the Clerk’s 

Office wrote Vanous and notified him that his attorney had filed an Anders 

motion and that he could respond to it. Vanous filed a response (1) alleging 

that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the district court, (2) 

stating that he never received his attorney’s Anders brief, and (3) requesting 

to proceed pro se and that counsel produce evidence and documents. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Since Vanous may not have received

counsel’s brief, we look to his response as well to determine if there are 

nonfrivolous issues. 

Vanous’s response does not change our conclusion. The only issues 

he raises are ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which are generally 

inappropriate on direct appeal unless the record is sufficiently developed 

regarding counsel’s conduct and motivations. See United States v. Isgar, 739 

F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Here, the record is not so developed. Thus, 

we decline to consider his ineffective assistance claims without prejudice to 

his right to pursue relief on collateral review. Furthermore, we deny his 

request to proceed pro se as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 

901, 902–03 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED

and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. Vanous’s 

requests for documents and to proceed pro se are DENIED and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10005 Document: 00516512092 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2022
FY 2014 Service Contract Inventory
 

Planned Analysis of FY 2014 Inventory
 

As required by OMB Memorandum entitled Service Contract Inventories, dated December 19, 2011, SEC

has selected the following PSCs in its FY 2014 inventory. The SEC selected five (5) PSCs. None of the

selected PSCs were included in the FY 2013 review. Additionally, these PSCs represent approximately

44% of the total obligated dollars for FY 2014.

PSC Product or Service

Description

Dollars

Obligated in

FY 2014

Rationale for Selection

D302 IT AND TELECOM –

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

$45,848,394.55 PSC selected because it is on the special

interest list and a top ten obligation each year,

but has not been reviewed since FY 2012.

D314 SYSTEM ACQUISITION

SUPPORT

$3,058,328.40 PSC selected because it is on the special

interest list and has not been previously

reviewed.

D318 IT STRATEGY AND

ARCHITECTURE

$15,284,291.25 PSC selected because it is new to the top ten

biggest percentages of obligations and has not

been previously reviewed.

R408 PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT

$27,380,835.30 PSC selected because it is on the special

interest list and a top ten obligation each year,

but has not been reviewed since FY 2012. PSC

also has potential for personal services,

inherently governmental work to be performed

by contractors and cover some SEC critical

functions.

R499 OTHER PROFESSIONAL

SUPPORT

$28,266,680.93 PSC selected because it is a top ten obligation

each year and has not been reviewed since FY

2012. PSC also has potential for personal

services, inherently governmental work to be

performed by contractors and cover some SEC

critical functions.
Sa n Francisc o Internationa l Airpor t

Marc h4,201 0 P.O . Bo x 809 7 Sa n Francisco , C

A 9412 8 Te l 650.821.500 0 Fa x650.821.500 5 www.nysfcixo m

«i«ro« T COMMIfflO M CIT YAN D COUMT

Y OF SA N FRANCISC

O CAVI N NiWSO M AMU M lAMYMAZZO U PMUOtH T UNOAS.OIAYTO N WCEMESIMN T CARV l IT O EICANO O lOHN S mCHAK O J . OUOCtNHIM E JOH N L . MAIITI N AWWurofHCTa * Th e Honorabl e Raymon dH . LaHoo d

Secretary U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010-003 4 Dear Mr . Secretary : O nbehal f o f th e San Francisc o Internationa l Airport , I writ e i n support o f th e Departmen t

o f Transportation' s expeditiou s consideratio no f th e pendin g American Airlines/Japa nAirline s applicatio n for antitrus t immunit y an dpropose djoin t busines s agreement , pursuan t t o th e sam e standard s applie db y DO T t o othe r allianc e application s b y U.S . airlines . Worldwid e alliances , suc ha s oneworld , hav e prove n beneficia l for th e aviatio nindustry an dfor

passengers . Airline s secur e marketin g an doperationa l efficiencies , airport s obtai n mor e efficient us e o f facilities , an dpassenger s stan dt o benefi t throug hlowe r

fare s an dmor e seamles s globa l airline s connections . Increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y - first

b y solidifyin g U.S . - Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b y servin g a s a foundatio nfor

iurthe r liberalizatio n acros s Asia . IX) T ha s i n th e pas t

supporte dgloba l airlin e alliance s tha t enhanc e consumer welfar e an dcompetition . Inth e interes t o f ou r region' s travelin g publi c an di n th e interes t o f acompetitiv e global marketplac e for ai r travel , w e urg e th e Departmen t t o ac t a s promptl y a s possibl e o n th e America n Airlines/Japa n Airline s request . Ver y trul y yours , Joni^ L . Marti n Airport Directo r P.O . Bo x 809 7 Sa n Francisco , CA . 9412 8 John.Martin(g),flvsfo.co m
Rec o rd of Discussion Docket N o . FAA- Dir ectorate Identifi er: -AD


### With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discus se d (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA ; GAMA, etc)?



### ORG AN I ZAT ION PER SON CONTACTED DAT E T OP ICS DISCUS S ED Boe ing Ti m Hendrix 9 /25/2015 SB A4A R obert Ireland 10 11 5 /20 1 5 Propo se d NPRM

Other/ Additio n al In fo 1 mation:
CS 315822-W 09/18/2020

10 

່

ິ

ສງ

່

ີ

ທທ

່ ານສາມາດເຮ

ັ

ດເພ

ື

່

ອຈ

ັ

ດການອາການ

ໂຄວິດ 19 (COVID-19) ຂອງທ

່ ານຢ

ູ

່ ່

ີ

ທບ້ ານ

ເວີ ຊັ

່ ນ່

ີ

ທສາມາດເຂົ

້ າເຖິ ງໄດ້ : https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html

​ຖ້ າ​ຫາກ​ທ່ ານ​ອາດ​ຈະ​ເປັ ນ ືຫຼ ືຢນ​ຢັນ​ວ່ າ​ເປັ ນ​ໂຄວິ ດ-19 (COVID-19):

1. ພັກວຽກ ແລະ ໂຮງຮຽນຢູ່ ເຮື ອນ. ແລະ

ຢູ່ ຫ່ າງຈາກສະຖານ່

ີ

ທສາທາລະນະ. ຖ້ າ

ຫາກທ່ ານຕ້ອງອອກໄປຂ້າງນອກ, 

ຈົ

່ ງຫີຼ ກເວັ

້ ນການ�

ນໍາໃຊ້ລະບົບຂົນສົ

່ ງ

ສາທາລະນະ, ການຂີ

່ ລົດຮ່ ວມກັນ ື

ຫຼ

່

ີ

ຂແທັ ກ່

ີ

ຊທຸ ກຊະິນດ.

2. ຕິ ດຕາມອາການຂອງທ່ ານຢ່ າງລະມັດ

ລະວັງ. ຖ້ າຫາກອາການຂອງທ່ ານຮຸ ນ

ແຮງຶຂ້ນ, ໂທຫາຜູ

້ ໃຫ້ໍ

ບິລການເບິ

່ ງແຍງ

ດູ ແລສຸ ຂະພາບຂອງທ່ ານທັນີທ. 

3. ພັກຜ່ ອນ ແລະ ່

ື

ດມ�ນ້ ໍາຕະຫຼ ອດ. 

4. ຖ້ າຫາກທ່ ານີມການນັດຫມາຍທາງການ

ແພດ, ໂທຫາຜູ

້ ໃຫ້ໍ

ບິລການເບິ

່ ງ

ແຍງດູ ແລສຸ ຂະພາບກ່ ອນເວລາ

ແລະ ບອກພວກເຂົ າວ່ າທ່ ານອາດຈະ

ເປັ ນໂຄວິ ດ-19 (COVID-19).

5. �ສໍາລັບເຫດການສຸ ກເສີ ນທາງການ

ແພດ, ໂທ 911 ແລະ ແຈ້ງເຈົ

້ າຫນ້ າ

່

ີ

ທຈັດສົ

່ ງວ່ າທ່ ານອາດຈະເປັ ນໂຄວິ ດ

19 (COVID-19).

6. ິປດການໄອ ແລະ ຈາມຂອງທ່ ານ

ດ້ວຍເຈ້ຍທິ ດຊູ ືຫຼ ໃຊ້ໍຂ້ ສອກດ້ ານໃນຂອງ

ທ່ ານ.

7. ຫມັ

່ ນລ້ າງື

ມຂອງທ່ ານດ້ວຍສະບູ່ ແລະ

�

ນ້ ໍາເປັ ນເວລາຢ່ າງຫນ້ ອຍ 20 ິວນາີທ ືຫຼ

�

ນໍາໃຊ້ ເຈວ ືຫຼ �ນ້ ໍາຢາລ້ າງືມ່

ີ

ທີມສ່ ວນປະສົມ

ຂອງທາດເຫົຼ້ າຢ່ າງຫນ້ ອຍ 60%. 

8. ໃຫ້ພັກຢູ່ ໃນຫ້ອງສະເພາະ ແລະ ຫ່ າງ

ຈາກຄົນ່

ື

ອນຢູ່ ໃນເຮື ອນຂອງທ່ ານໃຫ້

ຫຼ າຍເທົ

່ າ່

ີ

ທຈະເຮັ ດໄດ້ . ນອກນັ

້ນທ່ ານ

ຄວນຈະໃຊ້ຫ້ອງ�ນ້ ໍາແຍກ, ຖ້ າີມ. ຖ້ າຫາກ

ທ່ ານຕ້ອງຢູ່ ໃກ້ຄົນ່

ື

ອນໃນ ືຫຼ ນອກເຮື ອນ, 

ໃຫ້ ໃສ່ ຜ້ າິປດປາກິປດດັງ.

9. ີຫຼ ກເວັ

້ ນການໃຊ້ ເຄື

່ ອງຂອງສ່ ວນ

ຕົ ວຮ່ ວມກັນກັບຄົນ່

ື

ອນ ໃນເຮື ອນຂອງ

ທ່ ານເຊັ

່ ນ: ຈານ, ຜ້ າເຊັ ດໂຕ ແລະ ຜ້ າປູ

ບ່ ອນນອນ.

10. ອະນາໄມພື

້ ນຜິ ວ່

ີ

ທືຖກ�ສໍາຜັດຕະຫຼ ອດ

ເຊັ

່ ນ: ເຄົ າເຕີ , ຫນ້ າໂຕະ ແລະ ລູ ກິ

ບດປະ

ຕຸ . ໃຊ້ສະເປທ� ໍາຄວາມສະອາດ ືຫຼ ຜ້ າເຊັ ດ

ອະນາໄມເຮື ອນຕາມ�ຄໍາແນະ�ນໍາໃນ

ປ້ າຍບອກ. 

cdc.gov/coronavirus