alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT
AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT, AND NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998   
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998     
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK  
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   14,079,097
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,161,304
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,088,137
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 987,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,316,007
<COMMON>                                     2,357,727
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          2,659,583
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               5,017,310
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         5,511,750
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  169,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               6,617,947
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               17,316,007
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    3,316,813
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           135,059
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,511,338
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,646,397
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        670,416
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             983,936
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               1,654,352
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       435,538
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,218,814
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                1,218,814
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       390,608
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0(1)
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         347,470
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.55
(1)Not reported on an interim basis.
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.353 Further evidence during hearing.

At any stage of a hearing, the presiding officer may call for further evidence upon any issue and may require such evidence to be submitted by any party to the proceeding.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 4

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER

61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960

March 9, 2015

Mr. Ronald W. Gore

Chief Air Division, Alabama Department of Environmental Management

P.O. box 301463 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463

Dear Mr. Gore:

Enclosed is the final end-of-year report for your agency’s FY 2014 Air Pollution Control grant authorized by §105 of the Clean Air Act. This repor t outlines your agency’s various grant commitments

and their status. Since there were no issues and no adjustments necessary your report is now finalized. This letter documents the conclusion of the join t evaluation process require d by 40 Code of Federal Regulations 35.115 and identified as a commitment in your FY 2014 Air Planning Agreement under Cross Cutting Issues.

We appreciate the progress you made in FY 2014 and look forward to continuing our joint efforts to protect and improve air quality. If you have any qu estions regarding your gran t, please contact Stuart Perry at (404) 562-8980 or Gwendolyn Gr af at (404) 562-9289.

Sincerely,

Beverly H. Banister Director,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division

Enclosure
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-2234: Van der Hoeven Horticultural v. Glass Investment Projects - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hZB026iPOq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2234-van-der-hoeven-horticultural-v-glass-investment-projects-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-2234: Van der Hoeven Horticultural v. Glass Investment Projects<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2234-van-der-hoeven-horticultural-v-glass-investment-projects-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=hZB026iPOq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-2234: Van der Hoeven Horticultural v. Glass Investment Projects” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"hZB026iPOq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Van der Hoeven Horticultural v. Glass Investment Projects (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-2234 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
9 June 2016

113P16

#### State v. Austin Lynn Miller

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-636)

1. Allowed 03/31/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Allowed

3. State’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question

3.-

4. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Allowed

5. Def’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

5. Allowed
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 20-0439V 

UNPUBLISHED 

BRENDA G. FRITZ, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 31, 2021 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; 

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA) 

 

Susan M. Cremer, Law Offices of Michael Lawson Neff, PC, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner. 

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

 On April 15, 2020, Brenda Fritz filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine in her left shoulder 

on October 19, 2018, and subsequently suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at Preamble. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

 On August 30, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes 

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 

1. Specifically, Respondent states that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or 

dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an 

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

intramuscular vaccination; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the 

shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality 

was identified to explain her symptoms.” Id. at 5-6. Respondent further agrees that the 

six month sequela requirement has been satisfied. Id.

 In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Brian H. Corcoran 

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Chief Special Master
Note: This order is nonprecedential.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

IN RE COMPLAINT NOS.
F-08-90001, F-08-90002, F-08-90003, and F-08-90004

On Petition for Review of Order and supporting memorandum
dated August 15, 2008

DECIDED: September 17, 2008

Per Curiam

A petition for review filed September 2, 2008, seeking review of the order
and supporting memorandum of Chief Judge Michel, dated August 15, 2008,
which dismissed the complaints of judicial misconduct or disability, having been
teferred to the active judges of the court eligible to participate in the review, and
the petition for review, the underlying complaint, and Chief Judge Michel's order
having been considered,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The order dismissing the complaint is hereby affirmed.

FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly
FILED Jan Horbaly
Ci
US iHETEDERAL CHUTT Clerk of Court
SEP 17 2008

JAN HORBALY
CLERK
No. 11-9186.

#### Rodriguez-Franco *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Decided February 23, 1909.

#### STATE *v.*FERRY.

[99 Pac. 1044.]

From Coos: James W. Hamilton, Judge.

The defendant, William Ferry, was tried, convicted, and fined for violating the statute in reference to gambling, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Rule 16 of the Supreme Court. 50 Or. 580.

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Messrs. Guerry & Hollister*and *Mr. Austin S. Hammond.*

For the State there was a brief over the name of *Mr. George M. Brown,*District Attorney.

Mr. Justice King

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant, Ferry, appeals from the judgment of conviction under the statute for gambling, and the question presented is identical with that in *State*v. *Short,*53 Or. 245 (99 Pac. 1043), and for the reasons there stated must be affirmed. Affirmed.
#### § 214.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to provide guidance for the use of the radio spectrum in a period of war, or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or other wartime emergency.
#### § 15.519 Technical requirements for hand held UWB systems.

(a) UWB devices operating under the provisions of this section must be hand held, *i.e.*, they are relatively small devices that are primarily hand held while being operated and do not employ a fixed infrastructure.

(1) A UWB device operating under the provisions of this section shall transmit only when it is sending information to an associated receiver. The UWB intentional radiator shall cease transmission within 10 seconds unless it receives an acknowledgement from the associated receiver that its transmission is being received. An acknowledgment of reception must continue to be received by the UWB intentional radiator at least every 10 seconds or the UWB device must cease transmitting.

(2) The use of antennas mounted on outdoor structures, e.g., antennas mounted on the outside of a building or on a telephone pole, or any fixed outdoors infrastructure is prohibited. Antennas may be mounted only on the hand held UWB device.

(3) UWB devices operating under the provisions of this section may operate indoors or outdoors.

(b) The UWB bandwidth of a device operating under the provisions of this section must be contained between 3100 MHz and 10,600 MHz.

(c) The radiated emissions at or below 960 MHz from a device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the emission levels in § 15.209. The radiated emissions above 960 MHz from a device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz:

| Frequency in MHz | EIRP in dBm |
| --- | --- |
| 960-1610 | −75.3 |
| 1610-1990 | −63.3 |
| 1990-3100 | −61.3 |
| 3100-10600 | −41.3 |
| Above 10600 | −61.3 |

(d) In addition to the radiated emission limits specified in the table in paragraph (c) of this section, UWB transmitters operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:

| Frequency in MHz | EIRP in dBm |
| --- | --- |
| 1164-1240 | −85.3 |
| 1559-1610 | −85.3 |

(e) There is a limit on the peak level of the emissions contained within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the highest radiated emission occurs, fM. That limit is 0 dBm EIRP. It is acceptable to employ a different resolution bandwidth, and a correspondingly different peak emission limit, following the procedures described in § 15.521.

[67 FR 34856, May 16, 2002; 67 FR 39632, June 10, 2002]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1209: DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QmNGs7i1yL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2018-18-1209-dyncorp-international-llc-v-us-order-nonprecedential-18-1209-order-12-10-2018-1\/\">18-1209: DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2018-18-1209-dyncorp-international-llc-v-us-order-nonprecedential-18-1209-order-12-10-2018-1\/embed\/#?secret=QmNGs7i1yL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1209: DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"QmNGs7i1yL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. US [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1209 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New York. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday July 20, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eileen Cain at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an operational meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, July 20, 2000, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Internal Revenue Service Brooklyn Building located at 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. For more information or to confirm attendance, notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Eileen Cain. Mrs. Cain can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. The public is invited to make oral comments from 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday, July 20, 2000. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555, or write Eileen Cain, CAP Office, PO Box R, Brooklyn, NY, 11201. 

The Agenda will include the following: various IRS issues. 

# Note:

Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.

Dated: June 26, 2000. 

M. Cathy VanHorn, 

Director, CAP, Communications & Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 00-16799 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1154: DAVIS v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"h4fPO3KMcs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-09-2022-22-1154-davis-v-mcdonough-opinion-22-1154-opinion-9-9-2022_2001765\/\">22-1154: DAVIS v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-09-2022-22-1154-davis-v-mcdonough-opinion-22-1154-opinion-9-9-2022_2001765\/embed\/#?secret=h4fPO3KMcs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1154: DAVIS v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"h4fPO3KMcs\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: DAVIS v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1154 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}