alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed September 21, 2017 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00422-CV

____________

SHEILA SIMEON, Appellant

V.

FAT PROPERTY, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1090995

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due September 11, 2017. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before October 11, 2017, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
No. 11-5585.

#### Stephen L. Edwards, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 935, 132 S. Ct. 387,

181 L. Ed. 2d 243,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6555.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### *Cheng, Petitioner, v. Spokane Eye Clinic et al., Respondents,*

No. 92167-9.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 32198-3-III, June 9, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1014. *Denied*January 6, 2016.
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Jeffrey R. Mistarz, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electric City Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the Audit Committee of the Registrant’s Board of Directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.   /s/ Jeffrey R. Mistarz  Jeffrey R. Mistarz  Chief Financial Officer  November 10, 2005  
-32-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7659

RANDALL LEE CONRAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN DREW; OFFICER SMITH, Kitchen Staff,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

FCI BENNETTSVILLE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (5:12-cv-01288-RBH)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall Lee Conrad, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Randall Lee Conrad appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Conrad v. Drew, No. 5:12-cv-01288-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 

2013). 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 3, 2021

NO. 03-21-00578-CV

Seven Oaks Neighborhood Association, Inc., Appellant

v.

Craig Milius, Trustee of Milius Family Trust, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order granting summary judgment signed by the trial court on 

October 13, 2021. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over 

the appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19291]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than August 4, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Paul Kaboth, Banking 
Supervisor) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. Max A. Smith, Hope E. Smith, Ray Jeffery, Dorothy C. Jeffery, 
and Carol J. Chilcote, all of Antwerp, Ohio; to acquire voting shares 
of Diamond Bancshares., Inc., Antwerp, Ohio, and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of Antwerp Exchange Bank Company, Antwerp, Ohio.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 15, 1998.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-19291 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

# AP6.5. APPENDIX 6.5

**STANDARD FORM 344, MULTIUSE STANDARD REQUISITIONING/ISSUE SYSTEM DOCUMENT**

 (SAMPLE)

***1***

APPENDIX 1.5

AP6.5-1

APPENDIX 6.5

# image1.jpeg
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7335

CHARLES BEA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

TIMOTHY A. KELLY, Commissioner; RICHARD

CULLEN, Attorney General of Virginia,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-97-626-3)

Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Bea, Appellant Pro Se. Jane D. Hickey, Garland Locks

Bigley, 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

PER CURIAM:

Charles Bea appeals from the district court’s denial of his

habeas petition contesting his continued detention in a state

mental facility. We have reviewed the record and find no error.

We therefore deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss this appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
No. 10-7299.

#### Otis Waldron, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1077, 131 S. Ct. 682,

178 L. Ed. 2d 507,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9222.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 283.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21
                                                                   ----------


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                           ---------------------------

    The following are the subsidiaries of the Company. All subsidiaries are
wholly-owned, directly or indirectly, by the Company, unless otherwise
noted.

Entity
Jurisdiction


Falcon Products (Shenzen) Limited
The People's Republic of China

Falcon Holdings, Inc.
Missouri

The Falcon Companies International, Inc.
Missouri

Falcon Mimon a.s. (87.4% ownership)
Czech Republic

Falcon De Juarez, S.A. de C.V.
Mexico
         Fundicianes Tecnicas, S.A.
         Mexico

Howe Furniture Corporation
New York
         Johnson Industries, Inc.
         Illinois
         Howe Europe a/s
         Denmark

Shelby Williams Industries, Inc.
Delaware

         Sellers & Josephson, Inc.
         New Jersey

         Shelby FSC Corporation
         U.S. Virgin Islands

         Madison Furniture Industries, Inc.
         Mississippi

         Thonet International (UK) Limited
         England

         Industrial Mueblera Shelby Williams, S.A. de  C.V.
         Mexico
No. 10-7494.

#### Johnny Charles Carter, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1154, 131 S. Ct. 946,

178 L. Ed. 2d 782,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 321.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
EX-10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 

January 25, 2001 
 Ms. Anna Hall 

Director of Business Development 
 Genentech, Inc. 

1 DNA Way 
 South San Francisco 

CA 94080-4990 
  

	RE:	AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE INTERMUNE/GENENTECH LICENSE AGREEMENT


 Dear Ms. Hall: 
 Please consider this
document as Amendment No. 5 to that certain License Agreement for Interferon Gamma, dated May 5, 1998; as amended on December 26, 1998; January 15, 1999; April 27, 1999; and June 23, 2000 (collectively, the
“Agreement”), between INTERMUNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and GENENTECH, INC. (collectively, the “Parties”). 

1. The Parties agree that the first sentence of Section 2.2(b) of the Agreement is hereby terminated in its entirety and amended and
superseded as follows: 
 “(b) Use of the Mark. In using the Actimmune mark, InterMune shall display said mark with either the first
letter in uppercase (i.e., Actimmune) or all letters in uppercase (i.e., ACTIMMUNE).” 
 2. All other sections and exhibits of the
Agreement remain unchanged. 
 3. This Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement is made effective as of January 25, 2001. 

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement as of the date set forth below.

  

									
	INTERMUNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 		 	 GENENTECH, INC.


											
						
	By	 	/s/ John Wulf	 		 	By	 	/s/ Joseph S. McCracken	 	 


									
		 	John Wulf	 		 	      Print Name:	 	Joseph S. McCracken


									
		 	Sr. Vice President of Corporate Development	 		 	 Title:	 	VP Business Development


									
					
	Date	 	January 25, 2001	 		 	  Date:	 	4/5/01
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 18, 2020

No. 04-19-00691-CV

CUANTO ANTES MEJOR, LLC and M.E. Phillip,

Appellants

v.

EOG RESOURCES, INC.,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-12-00277-CVK

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellee’s partially opposed second motion for an extension of time to file the appellee’s 

brief is granted. We order appellee’s brief due March 20, 2020. Counsel is advised that no 

further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates 

extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel 

has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief 

will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally 

consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of February, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 99(b)


                                 TXU GAS COMPANY
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002


    The undersigned, Scott Longhurst, Principal Financial Officer of TXU
Gas Company (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

 1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
    31, 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 28th day of March, 2003.


                        /s/  Scott Longhurst
                     -----------------------------------
                     Name:   Scott Longhurst
                     Title:  Principal Financial Officer
No. 10-11169.

#### Fredrick Rolle, Petitioner v. William Scism, Warden.

565 U.S. 871, 132 S. Ct. 223,

181 L. Ed. 2d 124,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6767.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 405 Fed. Appx. 567.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18637]



[[Page 37898]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 16, 1998.
    Time: 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Parklawn Building--Room 9C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sheila O'Malley, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 
9C-26, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-6470.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 21, 1998.
    Time: 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Parklawn Building--Room 9-101, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Susan M. Matthews, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 9-
101, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-5047.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.281, 
Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for 
Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health 
National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, (HHS).

    Dated: July 7, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH
[FR Doc. 98-18637 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 10-11166.

#### Tushar S. Achha, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.

565 U.S. 870, 132 S. Ct. 223,

181 L. Ed. 2d 123,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6726.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II, denied.

Same case below, 331 Wis. 2d 729, 795 N.W.2d 492.
EXHIBIT 32.02

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Concur Technologies, Inc. (Concur) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
F. Adair, as Chief Financial Officer of Concur, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Concur.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 8, 2007



By

/s/ John F. AdairJohn F. AdairChief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Concur under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
No. 10-6870.

#### Matthew Bradley Kellner, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1176, 131 S. Ct. 1036,

178 L. Ed. 2d 823,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 716.

January 18, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP.3.18. APPENDIX 3.18**

**LOGISTICS REASSIGNMENT DELINQUENT DUE-IN FOLLOW-UP**

2

**AP3.18-**

AP3.18-1

APPENDIX 3.18
No. 11-5085.

#### Gerald Smith, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 889, 132 S. Ct. 267,

181 L. Ed. 2d 157,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5411.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 64 So. 3d 118.
No. 11-5374.

#### Carey D. Edwards, Petitioner v. Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.

565 U.S. 904, 132 S. Ct. 303,

181 L. Ed. 2d 185,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5528.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.

Same case below, 239 Or. App. 629, 246 P.3d 755.
No. 10-10115.

#### Donald W. Simms, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 831, 132 S. Ct. 128,

181 L. Ed. 2d 50,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5333.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 626 F.3d 966.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 31, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00392

- CR

D ’ Nerior Drew , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND JONES

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ argume nts, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs

is made

.
CS268689B

如何管理您的烟瘾 如何管理您的烟瘾

当您戒烟时,产生烟瘾很正常。虽然产生烟瘾是戒烟过程中必

须经历的一个阶段,但是您可以学习如何管理。您也许不能完

全避免所有吸烟诱因,但是您可以学会如何管理诱因;而这只

需要多多实践。

当烟瘾被诱发,制定一个消除烟瘾的计划则尤为重要。烟瘾

通常持续 5 到 10 分钟。烟瘾令人感到不自在,但您可以努力

坚持等到这种感觉消失。您可以做很多事情来帮助自己克服

烟瘾,并把可以做的事情列个清单。以下的一些小建议可供您

尝试。

获取帮助

• 给他人打电话或发短信。您无需独自戒烟。学习如何依靠您

信任的人。

• 華語戒煙專線 (ASQ) 可提供以下语种的免费服务。

− 普通话和粤语: 1-800-838-8917

− 韩语: 1-800-556-5564

− 越南语: 1-800-778-8440

• 在 https://smokefree.gov/tools-tips/smokefreetxt?s_

cid=OSH_tips_D9402 上注册以获得免费短信提醒,

全天候的戒烟帮助将会直接发到您的手机上。

• 在移动设备上获取帮助。可在 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/

campaign/tips/quit-smoking/mobile-quit-guide/index.

html?s_cid=OSH_tips_D9386 上查看戒烟指南 (QuitGuide) 

应用程序,该程序可让您追踪记录您的烟瘾情况和减少情

况。您可以记录下一天中您产生烟瘾时的时间点,以及烟瘾

发作时您的所在地。该 APP 具有许多其他功能,可帮助您

戒烟。

记住您戒烟的原因

• 重新提出戒烟。此举是为了提醒您自己为什么要戒烟。保持

健康和让您的家人远离二手烟的危害是您不吸烟的强大

动力。

• 增加储蓄。香烟价格昂贵!计算下您将节省下的钱,决定如

何花这笔存下来的钱。这是一个好方法,可让您始终保持动

力并且度过让烟瘾消失的这段时间。

保持忙碌

• 让您的嘴动起来。试着嚼口香糖,而不是拿起一根烟。随身

携带硬糖。全天多喝水。

• 做一些其他事。如果您烟瘾发作,请立即停下手中的事,然

后转做其他事情。仅仅通过改变您的日常习惯并关注新事

物,就有可能帮助您摆脱烟瘾。

• 去散步或慢跑。如果您不想散步或慢跑,

也可以尝试重复几次上下爬楼梯。体育活动,即使是活动

短暂的时间,也有助于让您增加活力,打败烟瘾。

• 慢慢地深呼吸。用呼吸缓解烟瘾。通过鼻子慢慢吸气,然后

用嘴慢慢呼气。重复 10 次,或直至您感觉更为放松为止。

前往无烟区

• 到访无烟场所。大多数公共场所都禁烟。前往电影院、商店

或其他您不能吸烟的无烟场所。

• 实践看看什么最适合您。当您发现自己身处无烟场所

时,您以前做过什么?下次烟瘾发作时,请使用同样的方

法。您可以打败您的烟瘾了!

尝试使用尼古丁替代疗法

即使使用尼古丁替代疗法 (NRT),您仍有可能

会出现难以控制的烟瘾发作。考虑使用短效 NRT,例如润喉糖

或口香糖,加上长效 NRT,例如贴剂,来去除烟瘾。

永不放弃

您有权采取一切措施来戒烟!不断尝试不同的方法,直至您找

到适合您的方法。只要不吸烟;一口都不行!

如需了解更多有关如何戒烟的信息(英文版),请浏览

www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/quit-smoking/guide/

index.html 查看戒烟指南;了解来自戒烟成功者的小建

议,网址:www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/。来源:

Smokefree.gov。

Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention

National Center for Chronic

Disease Prevention and

Health Promotion