alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,996
<SECURITIES>                                     9,989
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,463
<ALLOWANCES>                                       903
<INVENTORY>                                     11,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,997
<PP&E>                                          12,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,147
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,640
<OTHER-SE>                                          54
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,852
<SALES>                                         71,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,089
<CGS>                                           39,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,365
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  59
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,487
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,743
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,743
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
#### The Lehigh and Hudson River Railway Company, Plaintiff, *v.*The Village of Warwick, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Orange Special Term,

October, 1912.)

Deeds — of lands used exclusively for railroad purposes — dedication and acceptance construed — highways.

Injunctions — pendente lite — motion for, when granted — villages.

Where a deed of land required the grantee to use it exclusively for railroad purposes, such use for more than fifty years by the patrons of the grantee, a railroad company, in going to and from its station and freight houses, and incidentally by the general public, cannot be construed as a dedication and acceptance of the land as a public highway, as such use was permissive only.

Where the facts presented on a motion for an injunction *pendente lite,*in an action by the railroad company to restrain a village from further work upon the land, are insufficient to establish an intention on plaintiff’s part to entirely surrender the land to the village, the motion will be granted.

Motion for an injunction *pendente lite.*

Agar, Ely & Fulton, for plaintiff.

Kane & Stage, for defendant.

Tompkins, J.

I think the motion for an injunction *pendente lite*should he granted, and the defendant restrained from any further work upon the lands claimed to he owned *2by the plaintiff, until the trial and determination of the action upon the merits. The land in question was acquired by the plaintiff in 1861, by a deed which requires the plaintiff to use it exclusively for railroad purposes, and ever since it has been used by.the plaintiff for general railroad purposes, and by the patrons of the plaintiff’s railway, in going to and from the station and freight buildings, and incidentally by the general public. But such use of the railroad station grounds, permitted by the owner of the fee, cannot be construed as a dedication and acceptance of such lands as a village highway. In other words, by allowing the public to use the land in question as an approach to its station, the plaintiff did not relinquish its title thereto—such use is permissive only. New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Village of Ossining, 141 App. Div. *7*65; Concklin v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 149 id. 739, and other cases.

It may be that, at the trial of this action, the defendant will prove facts showing a dedication to the public of the strip in question, but the facts presented on this motion, in respect to the removal of the water trough and hydrant, etc., are not sufficient, in my opinion, to establish an intention on plaintiff’s part to entirely surrender its land to the village for public use.

Motion granted.
256 La. 616

#### John Wilson McDANIEL and Margaret A. Owens v. Ernest WELSH et al.

No. 50671.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1970.

In re: Parish of East Baton Rouge applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 234 So.2d 833.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
#### George W. QUEDNAU, Jr., Appellant, v. Helen I. CHAPMAN, as Executrix of the Estate of Bettymae Irene Chapman, deceased, Appellee.

No. 67-196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 6, 1967.

Appeal dismissed.
5/23/13 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet 1/2

A to Z Index | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us Subscribe to E-mail Updates

Follow Us | What's New | Release Calendar | Site Map

Search BLS.gov

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject FONT SIZE:

Change Output Options: From: 1990 To: 2013

include graphs

Data extracted on: May 23, 2013 (8:40:52 AM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

SeriesId: LNS14000000

SeasonallyAdjusted

Seriestitle: (Seas)UnemploymentRate

Laborforce status: Unemploymentrate

Type ofdata: Percentorrate

Age: 16yearsandover

Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3

1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3

1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4

1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5

1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5

1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6

1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4

1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7

1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4

1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0

2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9

2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7

2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0

2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7

2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4

2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9

2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0

2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3

2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9

Home Subject Areas Databases & Tools Publications Economic Releases Beta
5/23/13 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet 2/2

2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3

2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5

2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8

2013 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.5

Freedom of Information Act | Privacy & Security Statement | Disclaimers | Customer Survey | Important Web Site Notices

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20212-0001

www.bls.gov | Telephone: 1-202-691-5200 | TDD: 1-800-877-8339 | Contact Us

TOOLS

Areas at a Glance

Industries at a Glance

Economic Releases

Databases & Tables

Maps

CALCULATORS

Inflation

Location Quotient

Injury And Illness

HELP

Help & Tutorials

FAQs

Glossary

About BLS

Contact Us

INFO

What's New

Careers @ BLS

Find It! DOL

Join our Mailing Lists

Linking & Copyright Info

RESOURCES

Inspector General (OIG)

Budget and Performance

No Fear Act

USA.gov

Benefits.gov

Disability.gov
-  Tick-Borne Disease Working Group      -  21st Century Cures Act 
  -  Charter 
  -  Meetings 
  -  Reports 
  -  Contact Us 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# August 13-14, 2020, TBDWG Meeting (Cancelled)

## August 13, 2020 - August 14, 2020

## Agenda

A draft agenda is forthcoming.

## Meeting Cancellation

This meeting has been cancelled. The next meeting will be held in September 2020 and the final meeting dates will be posted online shortly on the TBDWG Meetings page. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this change.

If you submitted a request to provide public comment (verbal or written) for the August meeting, we will transfer your requests to the September meeting. If you have any questions or concerns, please email us at tickbornedisease@hhs.gov.

## Meeting Registration

This meeting has been cancelled.

----

Content last reviewed January 7, 2022
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Nathaniel SOLOMON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53580.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: Nathaniel Solomon applying for writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. A hearing having been ordered by the trial court, the application is moot.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1071 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1071

  To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make improvements to 
support facilities for National Historic Sites operated by the National 
                 Park Service, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

   Mr. Udall of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Bennet) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make improvements to 
support facilities for National Historic Sites operated by the National 
                 Park Service, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT, OPERATION, AND USE OF SUPPORT FACILITIES.

    (a) Improvement.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Director of the National Park Service (referred to in this Act as the 
``Secretary''), may make improvements to a support facility, including 
a visitor center, for a National Historic Site operated by the National 
Park Service if the project--
            (1) is conducted using amounts included in the budget of 
        the National Park Service in effect on the date on which the 
        project is authorized;
            (2) is subject to a 50 percent non-Federal cost-sharing 
        requirement; and
            (3) is conducted in an area in which the National Park 
        Service was authorized by law in effect before the date of 
        enactment of this Act to establish a support facility.
    (b) Operation and Use.--The Secretary may operate and use all or 
part of a support facility, including a visitor center, for a National 
Historic Site operated by the National Park Service--
            (1) to carry out duties associated with operating and 
        supporting the National Historic Site; and
            (2) only in accordance with an agreement between the 
        Secretary and the unit of local government in which the support 
        facility is located.
                                 <all>
```
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed April 18, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00028-CV

____________

NICHOLAS WHITE, MARK MOERSEN, TAURUS MANUFACTURING 

CO., AND OPTIMAS MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellants

V.

ZHOU PEI AND SHAUN WHITE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2005-54097

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellants filed a notice of appeal from a judgment signed October 11, 

2012. On January 17, 2013, within the trial court’s plenary power, the court signed 

an order granting appellants’ motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment in 

part. On February 15, 2013, within the court’s plenary power extended by the order 

modifying the judgment, the trial court vacated the final judgment in part with 
2

respect to the settlement credit issue, so that the court could consider a settlement 

credit that was not included in the original judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(h). 

Accordingly, the judgment on appeal is no longer final.

On April 11, 2013, appellants filed a joint motion to stay the appeal pending 

the trial court’s resolution of the settlement credit issue. On April 12, 2013, 

appellants advised this court that the motion is unopposed. We GRANT the 

motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER the appeal ABATED for a period of thirty days so that the trial 

court may resolve the settlement credit issue and sign a new judgment or order 

disposing of all remaining claims. Tex. R. App. P. 27.2 (permitting modification of 

an appealed order that is not final). A supplemental clerk=s record containing the 

trial court’s new judgment or order shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or 

before May 20, 2013. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court=s active docket when the 

supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may 

reinstate the appeal on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM
252 La. 113

#### Edith J. GIFFORD and Robert L. Gifford, Jr. v. AURAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.

No. 49188.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1968.

In re: Chevron Oil Company, The California Company Division applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 207 So.2d 160.

Writ refused. The case having been remanded the judgment is not final.
#### Robert D. ROOSE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION and Charles A. Boyd, Jr., Respondents.

No. 2372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 31, 1970.

Motion to Recall Decision on Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1970.

*511Benjamin T. Shuman, of Waterhouse & Shuman, Orlando, for petitioner.

Stanley A. Reese and Frank A. Wilkinson, Winter Park, for respondents.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We have before us a petition for rehearing filed by the respondents, Florida Real Estate Commission and Charles A. Boyd, Jr., to vacate and set aside the opinion in Robert D. Roose v. Florida Real Estate Commission and Charles A. Boyd, Jr., Fourth District Court of Appeal, Case No. 2372, opinion filed March 11, 1970.

The petitioner, Robert D. Roose, filed petition for writ of certiorari to the respondents, Florida Real Estate Commission and Charles A. Boyd, Jr., contesting the revocation of petitioner’s real estate license by the respondent on the basis that the petitioner obtained immunity pursuant to Section 932.29, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., on the charge contained in the information filed against him by the respondents. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Florida State Board of Architecture v. Seymour, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 1, we granted certiorari and vacated the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the petitioner guilty of violation of F.S. Section 475.25(1) (3), F.S.A., and directed the respondent to enter an order of dismissal.

It has been brought to the attention of this court that the opinion in Florida State Board of Architecture v. Seymour, supra, has been overruled by the Supreme Court of Florida in Headley v. Baron, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 281.

Accordingly, we grant petition for rehearing, vacate our original opinion, and deny certiorari.

Petition for rehearing granted.

CROSS, C. J., REED, J., and MINNET, JAMES F., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, concur.
#### Frida Yasnogordsky, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[722 NYS2d 248]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated January 26, 2000, as denied that branch of her motion which was to compel the defendant New York City Transit Authority to disclose a statement of a nonparty-witness on the ground that the statement constituted material prepared for litigation.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to conduct an in camera review of the statement of nonparty-witness, Evelyn Shaw, and to report its finding as to whether the statement is inconsistent in a material respect with her testimony at her deposition, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

The plaintiff was injured while attempting to board a bus. She sought disclosure of a statement made by nonpartywitness, Evelyn Shaw, to a New York City Transit Authority investigator who interviewed Shaw following the accident. Generally, statements by nonparty-witnesses obtained in an investigation after an accident are immune from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (d) (2) as material prepared for litigation *(see, Zellman v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*40 AD2d 248, 251; *see also, Kane v Her-Pet Refrig.,*181 AD2d 257, 262). However, where the statement of a nonparty-witness is inconsistent in a material respect with his or her testimony at a deposition, the statement should be disclosed pursuant to that provision of CPLR 3101 (d) (2) which permits the disclosure of material prepared for litigation where the plaintiff has substantial need of it and is unable to obtain its substantial equivalent without undue hardship *(see, Rochford v Long Is. R. R. Co.,*273 AD2d 291). The Supreme Court should not have decided that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to compel disclosure of Shaw’s statement without reviewing that statement in camera *(cf., Rochford v Long Is. R. R. Co., supra).*Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, and the appeal is held *542in abeyance in the interim. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Gold-stein and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Donald Loy PETTLE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53659.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. *14,*1973.

In re: Donald Loy Pettle applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.

DIXON, J.,

dissents from the refusal. It appears that this applicant could not have entered a plea voluntarily and intelligently because he was either suffering from serious mental illness *or*under the influence of tranquilizing drugs. This court has not reviewed the action of the trial court because there is no transcript of the evidentiary hearing before us.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHI NGTON, D.C. 20460 

Mr. Tim Lohner 

American Electric Power 

Environmental Services 

l Riverside Plaza 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

Dear Mr. Lohner: 

JUL 3 1 20i;) 

OFFICE. OF WATER 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has received your request for plant-specific 

information, including estimated compliance costs and pollutant removals, related to the 

proposed revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric 

Power Generating Point Source Category (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819). In 

response to your request, please find enclosed a disc containing one file and six attachments for 

each plant for which costs/removals are being provided. The file and enclosures present the input 

values and the costs and pollutant removals for the requested plants, as well as additional 

information regarding EPA's estimation of these values. The EPA is providing costs and 

pollutant removals for the following plants: 

• John E. Amos (09 161); 

• Big Sandy (061 18); 

• Cardinal (03265); 

• Clinch River (07727); 

• Conesville (0 1402); 

• Flint Creek (03978); 

• General James M. Gavin (04706); 

• Glen Lyn (04711 ): 

• Kammer (021 49); 

• Kanawha River (08405); 

• Lieberman (06627); 

• Mitchell (0 1236); 

• Mountaineer (04543); 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted w1th Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
• Muskingum River (09325); 

• Northeastern (06933); 

• Oklaunion (00376); 

• Picway (05802); 

• Pirkey (06635); 

• Riverside (03274); 

• Rockport (0 167 1 ); 

• Philip Sporn (05283); 

• Tanners Creek (05872); 

• Welsh (06739); and 

• Wilkes (07535). 

The information provided in the enclosed disc may contain information that was claimed by your 

company's plants as confidential business information (CBI) in response to the Questionnaire for 

the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines. The EPA is not responsible for the 

release of this CBI if you or others in your company provide these attachments to other parties. If 

you have any questions regarding these estimates, please contact me at (202) 566-1755 or 

alicea.jezebele@epa.gov. 

Thank you for your interest in the steam electric effluent guidelines rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosures