alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clarence McCANN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NEW WORLD PASTA COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-2152.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 23, 2012.

Filed: April 8, 2013.

Clarence McCann, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Anthony Grice, Terry L. Potter, Husch & Blackwell, St. Louis, MO, Richard J. Hafets, Jackson & Lewis, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Clarence McCann appeals the district court’s1 orders granting summary judgment to New World Pasta Company and denying McCann appointment of counsel. New World Pasta Company moves to strike certain new evidence that McCann has submitted on appeal, and we grant the motion. Having carefully reviewed the record that was before the district court, *see Estate of Morgan v. Cook,*686 F.3d 494, 496 (8th Cir.2012) (de novo review), we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons explained in the court’s thorough memorandum and order. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel. *See Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail,*437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Case 2:11-cv-02308-SDW-MCA Document 43 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 451
Case 2:11-cv-02308-SDW-MCA Document 43 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 452
Case 2:11-cv-02308-SDW-MCA Document 43 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 453
Case 2:11-cv-02308-SDW-MCA Document 43 Filed 02/10/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 454
#### The Sylvan Grove.1 The Dr. J. P. Witbeck. Wall *v.*The Sylvan Grove and another.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

July 16, 1886.)

1. Collision—Steam-Boat and Small Boat Astern of Tug—Overtaking Vessel—Liability for Personal Injury.

Libelant’s small boat, wbicb was being towed astern of tbe tug W., was run down by tbe steamer S., wbicb was on a course overtaking tbe tug. Libel-ant’s arm was thereby broken, and bis boat damaged, for wbicb injuries be brought suit against both the steam-boat and tbe tug. *Held,*that tbe steamer, being tbe overtaking vessel, was bound to have kept out of tbe way, and was in consequence solely liable for tbe collision.

2. Same—False Testimony—Allowance for Injury to Property—For Injury to Person.

Libelant swore falsely that bis boat was wholly destroyed. *Held,*that nothing should be allowed for tbe injury to property. *Held, also,*that be should recover §500 for tbe breaking of bis arm.

In Admiralty.

*Thomas D. Cottman*and *Biddle & Ward,*for libelant.

*A. P. & W. Man,*for the Sylvan Grove.

*Benedict, Taft & Benedict,*for the Dr. J. P. Witbeck.

1

 Reported by R. D. *&*Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

It is plain enough that the libelant cannot recover against the D?* J. P. Witbeck, at whose stem he was towing in his boat. It is equally plain that he can recover against the Sylvan Grove. The Sylvan Grove was overtaking the Witbeck, and the Wit-beck, with the libelant’s boat astern, was in plain sight. The duty of the Sylvan Grove was to avoid collision with the libelant’s boat. If, as she contends, there was a change of course on the part of the Wit-beck, which brought her on a course crossing the course of the Sylvan Grove, then it was the duty of the Sylvan Grove to stop, on seeing such change, and, by porting her wheel, avoid running over the libel-ant in his boat. If she was at a proper distance from the Witbeck, there was no difficulty in doing this. If, however, as is more probable, the Sylvan Grove approached so near to the Witbeck, holding her course, that a shift of the Witbeck’s wheel, made to allow the Sylvan Grove to pass her to port, threw the Witbeck’s stern a little off shore, and thereby pulled the libelant a little off shore, and under the paddle-wheel of the Sylvan Grove, then the Sylvan Grove was in fault for approaching so near the Witbeck. The libel must therefore be dismissed as to the Witbeck, with costs, and the libelant must recover his damages of the Sylvan Grove. He had one of his arms broken, and he swore falsely that his boat was wholly destroyed. I give him nothing for the injury to his property. For his broken arm I give him $500.

Let a decree be entered for the libelant against the Sylvan Grove for $500, and costs.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00818

- CV

Carleen RANTZOW f/k/a Carleen Black,

Appellant

v.

Christopher Edward BLACK

, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08

- 004

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

We ORDER that appellant, Carleen Rantzow f/k/a Carleen Black, bear all costs of this

appeal.

SIGNED June 12, 2013.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice
#### Maria Cruz et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v Irwin Rosenbaum et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[855 NYS2d 567]

On the evening of March 22, 2003 the plaintiff Vyacheslav Sadykov was riding in a motor vehicle operated by the plaintiff Maria Cruz on the Belt Parkway in Queens when it was struck from behind by a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Irwin Rosenbaum. Those plaintiffs (hereinafter the appellants) alleged that, as a result of the collision, they each sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Rosenbaum moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellants against him on the ground that the appellants’ injuries were not serious within the statutory definition. Thereafter, the defendant Anthony R. *800Falwell and the defendant Kevin Phung VI separately moved for the same relief, in reliance, inter alia, on the facts and arguments set forth by Rosenbaum in his motion papers.

The movants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that neither of the appellants sustained serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Somers v Macpherson,*40 AD3d 742, 743 [2007]). In their affirmed reports, Rosenbaum’s examining orthopedic surgeon and neurologist failed to compare their findings with regard to Cruz’s range of motion in various operations of the cervical and lumbosacral regions of the spine and in the right and left shoulders to what is considered the normal range of motion for those operations *(see Somers v Macpherson*at 743). In addition, in his review of the magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) study performed on Cruz’s cervical region of the spine, approximately 10 days after the occurrence, board certified radiologist Robert Scott Schepp found central posterior bulging discs at C4-C5 and C5-C6, which were deforming the thecal sac diffusely.

In support of his motion insofar as it related to Sadykov, Rosenbaum submitted, inter alia, a report prepared by Sadykov’s medical expert Dr. Leon Bernstein in which he indicated that, when he last performed range of motion testing on Sadykov’s right knee, on June 28, 2006, the knee ranged from 0° to 110°, whereas the norm is 0° to 145°. In addition, the report prepared by Dr. Schepp with regard to an MRI study of Sadykov’s right knee performed five days after the accident found a partial meniscal tear.

Since the movants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether the appellants’ papers in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Ayotte v Gervasio,*81 NY2d 1062 [1993]; *Somers v Macpherson*at 743). Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

19. Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work

[Numbers in thousands]

Hours of work

2013

Persons at work Percent distribution

All

industries

Agriculture

and related

industries

Nonagricultural

industries

All

industries

Agriculture

and related

industries

Nonagricultural

industries

Total, persons at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,926 2,036 136,891 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 to 34 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,813 529 33,284 24.3 26.0 24.3

1 to 4 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,443 36 1,407 1.0 1.8 1.0

5 to 14 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,120 129 4,991 3.7 6.3 3.6

15 to 29 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,014 247 16,767 12.2 12.1 12.2

30 to 34 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,237 118 10,118 7.4 5.8 7.4

35 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,113 1,506 103,607 75.7 74.0 75.7

35 to 39 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,645 90 9,555 6.9 4.4 7.0

40 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,891 576 60,315 43.8 28.3 44.1

41 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,577 840 33,737 24.9 41.3 24.6

41 to 48 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,761 153 11,608 8.5 7.5 8.5

49 to 59 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,428 252 13,176 9.7 12.4 9.6

60 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,388 436 8,952 6.8 21.4 6.5

Average hours, total at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 42.7 38.5 – – –

Average hours, persons who usually work full time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.6 48.5 42.5 – – –

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication criteria (values

not shown where base is less than 35,000).

1
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5224

For the relief of Dylan Brian Benwell. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2004

Mr. CRANE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Dylan Brian Benwell.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. NATURALIZATION OF DYLAN BRIAN BENWELL. 

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of title III of the Im5 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), 

6 Dylan Brian Benwell, shall be held and considered to be 

7 a naturalized citizen of the United States as of the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act and shall be furnished by 

9 the Secretary of Homeland Security with a certificate of 

10 such naturalization.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, the  undersigned
Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Speaking  Roses   International,   Inc.,  a  Utah
corporation (the  "Company"),  hereby certify,  based on my knowledge,  that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the three months ended June
30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

By /s/ John W. Winterholler
John W. Winterholler
President and Chief Executive
Officer

November 21, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3000
JAMES MALLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE BROWN, in his individual capacity; WILLIAM KEEN, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CV-95-55-2-BO) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Mallard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mallard v. Brown , No. CV-95-55-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35225-35226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17225]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


Agency Announcement

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) is announcing the 
following information about one of its information collections:

[[Page 35226]]

Consent Based Social Security Number Verification Service (CBSV)--0960-
0760

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) is hereby giving notice 
that effective October 1, 2009, the transaction fee for SSA's CBSV 
service will increase to $5.00 per transaction.
    CBSV is a fee-based service that provides instant, automated Social 
Security number (SSN) verification to private businesses and government 
agencies who obtain a valid, signed consent form from the SSN holder. 
These parties may only use verification results for the reason that the 
number holder specifies on the consent form. CBSV can easily handle 
large volume requests and is currently open for enrollment.
    We charge a fee to cover the cost of providing this service. To use 
CBSV, companies must pay a one-time, non-refundable enrollment fee of 
$5,000 and a transaction fee per SSN verification request. The 
transaction fee is presently 56 cents based on our assumption that we 
would receive 5.7 million SSN verification requests annually. That 
volume, however, did not materialize, and we now estimate receiving 1 
million requests. Effective October 1, 2009, the transaction fee will 
increase to $5.00 due to significantly fewer requests. Based on the 
revised estimate of 1 million annual transactions, this adjustment is 
necessary to recover our costs to develop and operate the system. 
Periodically, we will recalculate CBSV operational costs, review the 
number of transactions, and adjust the transaction fee as needed. We 
will notify subscribers in writing of any change in the transaction 
fee.

    Dated: July 15, 2009.
John Biles,
Reports Clearance Officer, Center for Reports Clearance, Social 
Security Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-17225 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
Case 3:10-cr-00692-PGS Document 28 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 166
Hon. Joe

U.S. Dist

Clarkson

402 East 

Trenton, 

R

 

Dear Jud

W

(D.E. 152

(see D.E.

that issue

issue pre

refusal to

going for

P

of validit

contentio

00947641 

cc: H

C

 

1 Pozen’s

claims of

or other p

contrast, 

Case No.

002317.”

l A. Pisano, 

trict Court fo

n S. Fisher B

State Street

NJ 08608 

Re: AstraZ

Case N

dge Pisano: 

We write with

2). Pozen’s 

. 168, at 9). 

e preclusion 

clusion disp

o give plainti

rward [in DR

ozen’s motio

ty of the pate

ons, and not 

Hon. Judge D

Counsel of re

 

s proposed st

f the ‘907 pa

preclusive ef

DRL’s Prop

. 3:13-cv-00

” (Exh. B, at 

U.S.D.J. 

or the Distric

uilding & U

t, Room 2020

Zeneca AB, e

No. 3:11-cvh respect to 

Reply Brief

A comparis

is the only r

ute in its eff

iffs any assu

RL I]” fails t

on makes no

ent, then the

in DRL II, w

 

Douglas E. A

ecord

 

tipulation sta

atent are not

ffect, any ch

posed Judgm

0091 [] only,

5.)

BUDD

A PROFESS

COUNS

150 JOHN F.

SHORT HI

9 7

FAX 

www

Direct D

Aug

ct of New Je

U.S. Courthou

0

et al. v. Dr. R

-02317 (DRL

Pozen’s mot

f incorrectly 

son of Pozen

real dispute.

fort to demon

urance that it

to divest the 

o sense in DR

y should mo

where DRL h

 

Arpert 

ates, “DRL a

invalid shal

hallenge to th

ment states th

, and withou

D LARNE

SIONAL CORPORA

ELLORS AT LA

 KENNEDY PA

L LS, NJ 0707 8

7 3-379-4800 

973-379-7734

.buddlarner.com

ial: 973-315-4

gust 16, 2013

ersey 

use 

Reddy’s Lab

L I); Case N

tion for sum

states that “

n Exhibits A 

1

 Indeed, Po

nstrate jurisd

t will not con

Court of sub

RL II. If Po

ove in DRL I

has only non

Respectfully

Alan H. Pol

agrees that th

ll preclude, b

he validity” o

hat the claim

ut any preclu

ER

ATION 

AW 

A RKWAY 

8-2703 

m

4439 

3

boratories In

No. 3:13-cv-0

mmary judgm

issue preclu

and B (D.E.

ozen relies u

diction. Poz

ntest the val

bject matter 

ozen really w

I, where DR

ninfringemen

y, 

llack 

his stipulatio

by claim pre

of the ‘907 p

ms of the ‘907

usive effect in

nc., et al.

00091 (DRL

ment of valid

usion is not b

. 168-3, 168

upon the exis

zen Reply Br

idity of the ‘

jurisdiction

wants a decis

RL has interp

nt contention

on and judgm

eclusion or is

patent. (Exh

7 patent “Ar

n Case Num

L II) 

ity in DRL I

before the Co

-4) demonst

stence of the

r. at 5 (“DRL

‘907 patent 

). 

sion on the m

posed invalid

ns. 

ment that the

ssue preclus

. A ¶ 8.) In 

re Not Invali

mber 3:11-cvII 

ourt” 

trates 

e

L’s 

merits 

dity 

e

sion 

id in 

-

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 169 Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 5807
WU - 12.31.2012 - Ex 10.44






Exhibit 10.44                                                                                                                                          


  [Western Union Letterhead]






November 15, 2011




Mr. John Dye
9720 Arnon Chapel Road
Great Falls; VA 22066


Dear John,


This letter shall serve to amend the offer of employment to you dated October 28, 2011 ("Offer Letter'') with Western Union, LLC, an affiliate of The Western Union Company ("Western Union" or the "Company").  The Offer Letter shall be amended as follows:


Your start date shall be changed from December 1, 2011 to November 30, 2011. 


Other than this amendment, the terms of the Offer Letter shall remain unaffected.


Please sign this letter to indicate your acceptance of this amendment to the Offer Letter and return the same to me by no later than November 21, 2011.


Sincerely,


/s/ Paula S. Larson


Paula Larson
Executive Vice President and 
Chief Human Resources Officer 
Western Union




I accept the terms of this amendment to the Offer Letter.


/s/ John R. Dye                                                                                      
Mr. John Dye


Date:     11/17/11              


















12500 East Belford Avenue ž Englewood, Colorado  80112
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

27. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

[Numbers in thousands]

Reason

Total,

16 years

and over

Men,

20 years

and over

Women,

20 years

and over

Both sexes,

16 to 19

years

2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,996 6,080 2,867 2,985 2,453 2,382 675 713

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 2,767 2,870 1,566 1,676 1,105 1,086 95 108

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 811 465 463 328 299 37 49

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,936 2,059 1,101 1,213 777 787 58 58

Permanent job losers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,359 1,485 763 872 564 579 33 34

Persons who completed temporary jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 574 338 341 213 209 26 24

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857 822 421 401 371 365 65 56

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,891 1,831 761 767 879 809 251 255

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 556 119 141 98 121 265 294

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 46.1 47.2 54.6 56.1 45.0 45.6 14.1 15.1

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8 13.3 16.2 15.5 13.4 12.5 5.5 6.9

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 33.9 38.4 40.6 31.7 33.1 8.6 8.2

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 13.5 14.7 13.4 15.1 15.3 9.6 7.9

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 30.1 26.5 25.7 35.8 34.0 37.1 35.8

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 9.1 4.1 4.7 4.0 5.1 39.2 41.3

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.7

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.9

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 4.0 4.0

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 4.2 4.6

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1