alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
118 STAT. 2338 PUBLIC LAW 108–416—NOV. 21, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 114:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Nov. 20, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–416

108th Congress

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2005, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

108–309 is amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c)

and inserting the following: ‘‘December 3, 2004’’.

Approved November 21, 2004.

Ante, p. 1138.

Nov. 21, 2004

[H.J. Res. 114]
Docket No. FAA-2015-7530

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 12/17/14

Regional Airline Association 12/17/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 12/17/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 12/17/14
Compensation Arrangements


 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
  
 Named executive officers are compensated under arrangements providing for employment at will. 
  

												
	 Name

	  	Base Salary
(effective
1/1/05)

	  	Bonus
Amount
for 2004

	  	Target Bonus
for 20051

	 	 	2005 Stock
Option
Awards2


	 Dennis Kakures
	  	$	400,000	  	$	284,737	  	86	%	 	55,000
	 Thomas Sauer
	  	$	252,000	  	$	99,971	  	66	%	 	20,000
	 Joseph Hanna
	  	$	228,000	  	$	116,156	  	71	%	 	20,000
	 Randle Rose
	  	$	182,000	  	$	79,692	  	66	%	 	12,500



	1	Target bonuses are expressed as a percentage of base salary. Target bonuses are awarded for performance and are not guaranteed. 


	2	The stock options granted to the named executive officers by the Compensation Committee were granted on January 14, 2005. The stock options have an exercise price
per share of $44.35, which was the fair market value at the time of the grant. Each executive officer’s stock options listed above will vest in equal annual installments over a five-year period.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determin ed that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-40432 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
JOSE MARIA MENDOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(L-94-CR-191-01)

________________________________________________

February 8, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Maria Mendoza appeals his convic tion and sentence for

con spiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled
substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and
841(b)(1)(A). He asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to
independently corroborate his confession. S ee United States v.
Ybarra , __ F.3d __, 1195 WL 692990 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Smith

v. United States , 348 U.S. 147, 152-53 (1954), for recognition of
general rule that accused may not be convicted on his own uncorroborated confession).- 2 -

Needless to say, we will not disturb a verdict on
insufficiency of evidence grounds if a r easonable trier of fact

could find that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. E .g., United States v. Bell , 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.
1982) (en banc), aff'd , 462 U.S. 356 (1983). We find more than

sufficient evidence to corroborate Mendoza's inculpatory statements

and sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have

concluded that Mendoza conspired to possess cocaine with intent to
distribute.
Accordingly, we

AFFIRM

.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CARLOS DE LA PUENTE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00132-MP-AK

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

UNITED STATES,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 20, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the complaint in this case be dismissed as untimely. The

plaintiff filed objections, doc. 21, which the Court has reviewed. The Court agrees that Mr. De

La Puente's complaint is untimely. 

Mr. De La Puente was stopped by police in May of 1992, who discovered over $44,000

in currency in his car. He and his wife offered differing explanations for the source of the

money, a drug detection canine alerted positive for controlled substances on the money, and Mr.

De La Puente was found to have a long criminal record of drug-related offenses. The state

police officer therefore seized the currency, but a state judge later ordered it returned. Before it

could be returned, however, federal authorities seized the money and initiated a forfeiture

proceeding against it, in 1993. Notice was sent via certified mail and entries in the USA Today

newspaper, but the certified mail was returned. The forfeiture was eventually completed.

Additionally, an attorney retained by Mr. De La Puente contacted the United States Attorney in

1993 and was told the full status of the forfeiture proceeding. Mr. De La Puente also filed an

Case 1:03-cv-00132-MP-AK Document 22 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cv-00132-MP-AK

action in Georgia in 1995 that was dismissed for lack of prosecution and for untimeliness.

Mr. De La Puente then filed suit in this Court in 2003, seeking the return of this money. 

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that plaintiff received ample notice of the 1993

forfeiture such that he should have brought his claims at the latest by 2000. Hence, no matter

how Mr. De La Puente's pro se filing in this case is construed, it is untimely. It is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. This action is DISMISSED, and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00132-MP-AK Document 22 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 2
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCalculated performance of the NASA Lewis icing research tunnelThe Icing Research Tunnel is used extensively to test many classes of aircraft under atmospheric icing conditions. Because of the need to test models at higher Reynolds numbers, a new fan rotor was designed to increase test section wind speed. A preliminary study was made of the present fan rotor to suggest possible methods to increase tunnel wind speed. The results of that study are presented.Document ID19910019885Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsViterna, Larry A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1991Subject CategoryResearch And Support Facilities (Air)Report/Patent NumberNASA-TM-105173E-6469NAS 1.15:105173Accession Number91N29199Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 474-12-10Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910019885.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01036-MP

JAMES R YOUNG, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 192, Mr. Young's Notice of Appeal construed as

a motion for certificate of appealability, and Doc. 195, Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma

Pauperis. For the reasons stated in the order at Doc. 187, the Court finds that Petitioner fails to

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and the issues are not adequate

enough to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, no certificate of

appealability is appropriate in this case. 

Under Fed. R. App. P. 24(1), a party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

must file a motion with the district court, and the Court, under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4) may

certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith and for that reason deny the motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. For the same reasons as above, the Court hereby certifies that the appeal is not

taken in good faith. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 195) is likewise

denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of December, 2012

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2582 

To end the application of sequestration to the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2013 

Mr. HONDA (for himself, Ms. LOFGREN, and Ms. ESHOO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To end the application of sequestration to the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Patents and Trade5 marks Encourage New Technology Jobs Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘PATENT Jobs Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2582 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF SEQUESTRATION IN FISCAL YEAR 

2 2013 FOR THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OF3 FICE. 

4 Notwithstanding the Presidential order issued on 

5 March 1, 2013, under section 251A of the Balanced Budg6 et and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 

7 901a), on and after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

8 the budgetary resources sequestered under such order with 

9 respect to the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

10 shall be available for obligation for the same purpose and 

11 in the same manner as if such order had not been issued. 

12 SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM SEQUESTRATION IN FISCAL 

13 YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2021. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 255(g)(1)(A) of the Bal15 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act is 

16 amended by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘The United States Patent and Trademark Of18 fice (13–1006–0–1–376).’’. 

19 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub20 section (a) shall apply to any sequestration order issued 

21 by the President under section 254 of such Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Snyder Construction Company, Inc., Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 62762.)

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Was the order of the Court of Claims which denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the claim as time barred correct as a matter of law?” Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
2006-0454.

#### State v. Alfaro.

Butler App. No. CA2004-10-248, 2005-Ohio-5900. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
#### § 301.80-6 Assembly and inspection of regulated articles.

Persons (other than those authorized to use certificates, limited permits, or restricted destination permits, or reproductions thereof, under § 301.80-4(e)) who desire to move interstate regulated articles which must be accompanied by a certificate or permit shall, as far in advance as possible, request an inspector to examine the articles prior to movement. Such articles shall be assembled at such points and in such a manner as the inspector designates to facilitate inspection.

[35 FR 10553, June 30, 1970, as amended at 36 FR 24917, Dec. 24, 1971; 41 FR 27374, July 2, 1976]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

t1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145806

- 7

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145806

- 7

COA: 303917, 304204

Wayne CC: 10

- 010643

- FC

WILLIAM SHANTE JENKINS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Februa ry 5 , 2 007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1322 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 04 -2 03 20 -CR- CMA UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A , Plaintiff-Appellee , ve rs us STEPHANIE SMITH , D ef en dant- Appe llant .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 5, 200 7) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

St ep hanie S m ithappe al s he r co nvi ct ion s f or c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it he al th care fra ud, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 371 ; three counts of rece iving health care kic kba ck s, in vio la tio n of 42 U . S. C. § 13 20( b) (1 )( A )- (B ); c onsp ir ac y to co m m it m one y launde ri ng, in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. § 19 56( h) ; and m one y launde ri ng, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 19 56( a) (1 )( B) (i ). S he a sse rt s th e dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s dis cr et ionby

a dm itt ing int o e vid en ce ta x f orm s S m ithc om

ple te d and atta ch ed

to a m ortga ge appl ic at iona ft er the he al th c ar e fr au d c onsp ir ac y ha d e nde d. S m itha lso ch al le nge s on e of

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. United States v. N

diaye , 43 4 F .3d12 70 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e rev ie w a ch al le nge to a j ur

y ins tr uc tio n de novo . I

d. A ft er he ar ing or al arg um en t i n th is c as e an d r ev ie w ing the r ec or d onappe al , w e have de te rm ine d th e dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

a dm itt ing the t a x f o rms an dd i dn o te rr

i ni n s tr u c t i n g th e j u ry. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e a f f i rm. AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BRIAN CHARLES PIERRE

CONSTANT, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-85-TKW-MJF

JEFFREY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Second Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 35). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration 

of the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that Defendants Brown and Land’s motion to 

dismiss should be denied because they have not satisfied their burden of showing 

that an administrative remedy was “available”—as that term is used in §1997e(a) 

and as construed by the Supreme Court—to exhaust the choking incident that 

allegedly occurred at Holmes C.I. on October 21, 2019.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Second Report and Recommendation is adopted 

and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 5:20-cv-00085-TKW-MJF Document 36 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Defendants Brown and Land’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) is 

DENIED. 

3. This case is recommitted to the magistrate judge for further pretrial 

proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2022.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00085-TKW-MJF Document 36 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2
#### Helen Sudakin et al., Respondents, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages *inter alia*for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 24, 1968, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim and to serve an amended complaint. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied. Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of subdivision 1 of section 1276 of the Public Authorities Law and section 50-e of the General Municipal Law *(Conroy*v. *Long Is. R. R., 31*A D 2d 834). They further failed to commence this action with the one-year limitation of time (Public Authorities Law, § 1276, subd. 2; *Matter of Martin*v. *School Bd. of Union Free Dist. No. 28, Long Beach,*301 N. Y. 233). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
Attachment I 

SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST . 

. Circle YES or NO behind each number or letter to detennine if a formal SIP revision submittal is complete. 

If the SIP submission is bein:g parallel processed, circle YES or NO behind only the·numbers with an *. 

l. Submittal letter (Governor or designee) @ NO 

2. Evidence of adoption which contains: 

I a. Actual copy of regulatory changes NO 

b. Date adopted NO 

c. Date effective NO 

d. Signatory requirements NO 

*e. If parallel processing, schedule for final 

adoption or issuance YES NO 1'1/(;( 

*f. Copy of the proposed/draft regulations @ NO 

, *3. Legal authority (evidence that state has necessary 

legal authority to adopt and implement revision) @ NO 

4. Copy of public notice @; NO 

5. Certification that public hearing was held @ NO 

6. Compilation of public comments and stat~ 

@ - NO _ €)(fl::t.~~iO,~i "Icluk.\ responses WI~\A e\rv\~ ~l'~ o..Md-a(''J 

Does TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT contain the following: * Stcl\elMe",~,,> 

() /0. 

l. Pollutants affected by the change YES NO 

2. Sources affected YES NO 

3. Quantification of the changes in emissions YES NO 

(actual/allowable) 

4. Demonstration of protection: NAAQS YES NO 

PSD increments YES NO 

RFP YES NO 

Visibility YES NO 

5. Full modeling infonnation YES NO 

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission 

limitations are based on continuous emission 

reduction technology. YES NO 

7. Evidence that a revision contains emission 

limitations, work practice standards, and 

recordkeeping/reporting requirements YES NO 

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies including 

how compliance will be determined in practice, 

and at what frequency. YES NO 

9. As appropriate, special economic and technological YES NO
```

[108th Congress Public Law 328]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ328.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1273]]

Public Law 108-328
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City 
  Watershed Protection Program. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2004 -  [H.R. 2771]>> 

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

SECTION 1. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.

    Section 1443(d)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-
2(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``1997 through 2003'' and inserting 
``2003 through 2010''.

    Approved October 16, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2771 (S. 1425):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108-476 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 108-205 accompanying S. 1425 (Comm. on Environment 
and Public Works).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            May 5, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
98-1584.

#### State ex rel. Floyd v. Cain.

In Prohibition. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

*1428Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E, Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents and would grant the writ.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T20:12:24-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Coconino Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Coconino Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Flagstaff, Arizona, to discuss proposal criteria, voting procedures, 
meeting dates, proposal deadlines, and various operating guideline 
protocols. No proposals will be heard at this meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 17, 2010, beginning at 12 p.m. 
to approximately 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Ponderosa Room of the 
Coconino County Health Department, 2625 N. King St., Flagstaff, Arizona 
86004. Send written comments to Brady Smith, RAC Coordinator, Coconino 
Resource Advisory Committee, c[sol]o Forest Service, USDA, 1824 S. 
Thompson St., Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 or electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b3a3b0b5a8a2bcb8a5b991b7a2ffb7b4b5ffa4a2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="593b2b383d202a34302d31193f2a773f3c3d772c2a">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brady Smith, Coconino National Forest, 
(928) 527-3490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda items for this meeting include (1) 
Membership changes; (2) Caucus breakout and discussion; (3) Calendaring 
for future meetings and deadlines for proposals. The meeting is open to 
the public.

    Dated: November 15, 2010.
M. Earl Stewart,
Forest Supervisor, Coconino National Forest.
[FR Doc. 2010-29243 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>