alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Recommended 

National 

Investment 

Total 

State and 

Community 

Interventions 

Mass-Reach Health 

Communication 

Interventions 

Cessation 

Interventions 

Surveillance & 

Evaluation 

Infrastructure, 

Administration, 

& Management 

Total Level 

(dollars in 

millions) 

Minimum: 

$2,325.3 

Recommended: 

$3,306.3 

Minimum: $856.7 

Recommended: 

$1,071.0 

Minimum: $370.1 

Recommended: 

$532.0 

Minimum: $795.1 

Recommended: 

$1,271.9 

Minimum: 

$202.6 

Recommended: 

$287.7 

Minimum: 

$100.8 

Recommended: 

$143.7 

Per Person 

(based on 

total state 

population) 

Minimum: $7.41 

Recommended: 

$10.53 

Minimum: $2.73 

Recommended: 

$3.41 

Minimum: $1.18 

Recommended: 

$1.69 

Minimum: $2.53 

Recommended: 

$4.05 

Minimum: $0.65 

Recommended: 

$0.92 

Minimum: $.32 

Recommended: 

$0.46 

t

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion 

Office on Smoking and Health 

2014 

Defines the specific annual investment needed for state comprehensive tobacco control programs to 


implement what we know works to improve health. 

Core Comprehensive Tobacco Control Program Components: 

1. State and Community Interventions

2. Mass-Reach Health Communication Interventions

3. Cessation Interventions

4. Surveillance and Evaluation

5. Infrastructure, Administration, and Management

What is a Comprehensive Tobacco Control Program? 

A comprehensive tobacco control program is a statewide, coordinated effort to establish 

smoke-free policies and social norms, to promote quitting and help tobacco users quit, 

and to prevent tobacco use initiation. These programs reduce tobacco-related disease, 

disability, and death. 

Goals: 

1. Prevent tobacco use initiation among youth and young adults

2. Promote quitting among adults and youth

3. Eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke

4. Identify and eliminate tobacco-related disparities

Comprehensive tobacco control programs work and are a public 

health “best buy.” t Investments in comprehensive tobacco control programs have high return 

on investment. 

Sustained funding for these programs improves health and leads to even greater 

returns on investment. 

CDC’s Best Practices–2014 Recommended Funding 

Levels by Program Component 

FAST FACTS
 

Tobacco use is the 

single most preventable 

cause of death and 

disease. 

1 in 4 adults uses 

tobacco. 

There is no risk-free 

level of secondhand 

smoke exposure. 

Tobacco use costs 

the United States 

$289–$332.5 billion in 

direct health care costs 

and productivity losses 

every year. 

CS243954E
No. 10-10757.

#### Leroy Hefley, Petitioner v. Delaware.

565 U.S. 848, 132 S. Ct. 168,

181 L. Ed. 2d 81,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6238,

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 403 Fed. Appx. 677.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38227-38228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33622]

Royal Gorge Express--LLC--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--
Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Royal Gorge Express, LLC, a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice 
of

[[Page 38228]]

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from Union Pacific Railroad 
Company (UP) and to operate approximately 11.75 miles of UP's Tennessee 
Pass railroad line in Freemont County, CO, between milepost 171.90, at 
Parkdale, and milepost 160.15, at Canon City.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ UP will retain permanent, irrevocable overhead trackage 
rights so as to preserve the integrity of the Tennessee Pass through 
route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after July 6, 
1998.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33622, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Fritz R. Kahn, Esq., 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 750, 
Washington, DC 20005-3934.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: July 8, 1998.

    By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18852 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19038]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
    Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and 
Title 26, U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Marjorie W. Emmons,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-19038 Filed 7-13-98; 3:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Unexplained Respiratory Disease Outbreaks (URDO)


Section Navigation
			
			CDC Home








Emergency Preparedness and Response						Print
																Related Pages
										Respiratory disease outbreaks are a common public health problem and investigating them can be a challenge. Determining which pathogen is the cause (etiology) of an outbreak is critical to implementing appropriate control measures.
CDC developed the following resources to assist public health professionals and partners in investigating **unexplained respiratory disease outbreaks (URDO)**.Investigate an OutbreakGenerate a Differential DiagnosisSpecimen Collection and HandlingDetect and Characterize the PathogenPrevent Disease TransmissionRequest CDC AssistancePublications and Resources
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  June 1, 2023						Source: 	National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Division of Bacterial Diseases
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeURDO Home
Investigate an Outbreakplus icon
Epidemiological Curve
Data Collection Forms
Generate a Differential Diagnosis
Specimen Collection and Handling
Detect and Characterize the Pathogen
Prevent Disease Transmission
Request CDC Assistance
Resources


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
<TABLE>

								   EXHIBIT 11.1
		   ETHYL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
		   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
	  for the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993
		(In thousands except per share amounts)
<CAPTION>

						    1995       1994       1993
						 -------    -------    -------
<S>                                              <C>        <C>       <C>
Income before extraordinary item and
   discontinued insurance operations             $73,963    $97,755   $ 90,022
Extraordinary item                                  -          -        (5,000)
						  ------     ------     ------
Income before discontinued insurance operations   73,963     97,755     85,022
Income from discontinued insurance operations       -          -        90,483
						  ------     ------     ------
Net income                                        73,963     97,755    175,505

Less preferred stock dividends
   First Preferred:
      6% Series A, $6.00 per share                  -           (12)       (12)
						  ------     ------     ------
Net income applicable to common stock             73,963     97,743    175,493
						 =======    =======    =======

Average number of shares of common stock
   outstanding                                   118,436    118,427    118,382

Shares issuable upon the assumed exercise of
   outstanding stock options (1)                      10         24         54
						  ------     ------     ------
Shares of common stock and common stock
   equivalents (1) (2)                           118,446    118,451    118,436
						 =======    =======    =======

Earnings per share: (3)
   Income before extraordinary item and
      discontinued insurance operations            $0.62      $0.83      $0.76
   Extraordinary item                               -          -         (0.04)
						  ------     ------     ------
   Income before discontinued insurance operations  0.62       0.83       0.72
   Income from discontinued insurance operations      -          -        0.76
						  ------     ------     ------
   Net income (3)                                  $0.62      $0.83      $1.48
						 =======    =======    =======


Notes:

(1)   For fully-diluted earnings per share, the shares issuable upon the assumed
      execise of outstanding stock options would be 11, 26, and 58 in 1995, 1994,
      and 1993, respective, and the shares of common stock equivalents would have
      been 118,447, 118,453, and 118,440, respectively.

(2)   To determine the average number of shares of common stock and common stock
      equivalents, the average number of common shares and common stock equivalents
      outstanding (actual or assumed for equivalents) during each month were added
      together and the sum was then divided by 12.

(3)   Primary earnings per share and fully-diluted earnings per share are the same
      amounts.


</TABLE>
*DoD 4000.25-7-M, March 2004*

DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

# DIC FP1/FP2/GP1/GP2 (B) FORMAT

**RETAIL PETROLEUM ISSUES AND CREDITS**

136

	APPENDIX 3.20

1
#### Lucila Savinon, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 2]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered November 28, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

*575Plaintiff was a passenger on defendant’s bus, which was operated by its employee Alvin Hamblin, when a man attempted to board the bus without paying the fare and then assaulted Hamblin. During the altercation, passengers fled to the rear of the bus, yelling for the rear exit door to be opened. Plaintiff, who was in the rear of the bus at the time, suffered a panic attack, which allegedly caused a condition that necessitated implanting a defibrillation device in her chest.

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiff’s negligence claim by submitting evidence showing that the incident was the result of an emergency situation that was not of Hamblin’s own making and that afforded him little or no time to consider an alternate course of action *(see Maisonet v*Roman, 139 AD3d 121, 123-124 [1st Dept 2016], *appeal dismissed*27 NY3d 1062 [2016]; *Bello v Transit Auth. of N.Y. City,*12 AD3d 58, 60-61 [2d Dept 2004]). The record demonstrates that Hamblin reasonably and prudently responded to the emergency by making sure that the bus’s emergency brake was activated and pressing the silent alarm to summon the police *(see Villar v MTA Bus Co.,*80 AD3d 602 [2d Dept 2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. She only presented unsubstantiated assertions and speculation that Hamblin may have breached a duty of care by not making sure that the rear exit door was unlocked and that her injuries might have been avoided if he had acquiesced to the assailant’s demand that he be permitted to board the bus without paying the fare *(see Mendez v City of New York,*110 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2013]; *Brooks v New York City Tr. Auth.,*19 AD3d 162, 163 [1st Dept 2005]).

Dismissal of the false imprisonment claim is also warranted, since there is no evidence that Hamblin intended to confine plaintiff *(see Broughton v State of New York,*37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975], *cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg,*423 US 929 [1975]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gische and Moulton, JJ.

Motion to strike portions of brief denied.
Exhibit 31.2
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Intentionally omitted];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role
in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
 June 2, 2008
    /s/ J. Per BrodinJ. Per BrodinChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit      32.1**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350**

**As      Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| (1)                      | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |                                                                        | **Metwood,                Inc.**           |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       |                                                                        |
|                                  |                                                                   |                                  |
| Date: October                19, 2005 | By:                                                               | /s/ Robert                M. Callahan |
|                                       | Robert M. CallahanChief                  Executive                  Officer |
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CASCADES PROJECTION LLC, Appellant

v.

EPSON AMERICA, INC., SONY CORPORATION, Appellees

______________________

2017

- 1517, 2017

- 1518

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trad emark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s

. IPR2015

- 01206, IPR2015

- 01846.

______________________

JUDGMEN T

______________________

P HILIP P. M ANN , Mann Law Group, Seattle, WA, a rgued for appellant. Also represented by R OBERT G REENSPOON , Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, Chicago,
IL.

D AVID J. B ALL

, J R

. , Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee Epson America, Inc. Also represented by N ICHOLAS P.
G ROOMBRIDGE

, J ENNY C HIA C HENG W U , New York, NY.A NDREW J. B RAMHALL , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellee Sony Corporation. Also represented by K EVIN P.B.
J OHNSON ; M ATTHEW A. S MITH
, Smith Baluch LLP, Was hington, DC.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R EYNA

, W ALLACH

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 13, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
540 P.2d 201

#### Rosemary C. KELLY, Appellant, v. Charles M. KELLY, Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1860.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 30, 1975.

*583Christoffel & Brown by Dean C. Christoffel, Tucson, for appellant.

Lieberthal & Kashman, P. C., by David H. Lieberthal, Tucson, for appellee.

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

In this appeal from a decree of divorce, appellant questions the award of the home and custody of the minor children to appellee, her former spouse.

In her pleadings appellant described the home as community property. At trial appellee testified that the house was held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Appellant’s counsel at trial raised the jurisdiction of the court relative to the home but did not offer the deed in evidence, nor was there any testimony that the parties accepted a deed to the home as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as community property.

In her motion for a new trial, the wife disputed the award of the home to the husband and attached a copy of the deed showing proper acceptance by the parties. The court denied the motion.

At the time of trial, the court had no jurisdiction to make an equitable award of joint tenancy property. *Becchelli v. Becchelli,*109 Ariz. 229, 508 P.2d 59 (1973). The evidence at trial did not establish that the home was held in joint tenancy. *DeMarce v. DeMarce,*101 Ariz. 369, 419 P.2d 726 (1966). However, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time, *Rojas v. Kimble,*89 Ariz. 276, 361 P.2d 403 (1961), and the parties cannot by consent give the court jurisdiction over subject matter which it would not otherwise have. *Porter v. Porter,*101 Ariz. 131, 416 P.2d 564 (1966); *Rodieck v. Rodieck, 9*Ariz.App. 213, 450 P.2d 725 (1969). The trial court erred in not granting a new trial on the issue of the status of the home.

The custody of the minor children was hotly contested. An investigation was conducted by a court social worker pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 25-335. The evidence shows that the trial court did not err in awarding custody of the minor children to appellee.

That part of the judgment awarding appellee the home, Lot 13, Block 5, of Mission Terrace, is reversed and the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

KRUCKER and HATHAWAY, *JJ.¡*concur.
#### *In re Guardianship of Decker,*

No. 91929-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45465-3-II, June 16, 2015 16,2015,188 188 Wn. App. 429. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
No. 10-10374.

#### Gerald Bush, Petitioner v. Philadelphia Police Department, et al.

565 U.S. 835, 132 S. Ct. 138,

181 L. Ed. 2d 58,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5462,

October 3, 2011.

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

# Epi Curve
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements Nos. 333-130487, 333-110194, and 333-17295 on Form S-8 of our reports dated August 8, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Electro Rent Corporation, and the effectiveness of Electro RentCorporation’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Electro Rent Corporation for the year ended May 31, 2011. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Los Angeles, CA 

August 8, 2011