alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. W. Anderson et ux *v.*Ben Emison et al.

Frauds, Statute of — Parol Contracts for Sale of Land — Terms of Sale Must Appear.

Before a court of equity will enforce a parol contract for the sale of land the terms must clearly appear as to price and time of payment.

APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

February 11, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Emison together with their sister Julia Ann Berry held a tract of land jointly and this petition was filed by 'Emison and wife to have partition and compensation for improvements. Anderson and wife answered, setting up first that they had sold by parol to Emison their undivided interest in said land at a specified sum to be paid at named periods and filed three of his letters evidencing said sale, and secondly that he had used the place for several years and the rents thereof was worth $500, which they plead as a counter-claim to his claim for improvements. *380A demurrer- was sustained to the first paragraph of the answer, to which exception was taken; whether it was subsequently-amended does not appear, but Emison filed reply controverting the sale and allegations in the first paragraph as well as the value' of the rents set up in the second, and the bill of exceptions containing the evidence shows that the issue as to the sale was heard and adjudged by the court, and a partition ordered after hearing the evidence. It is apparent that nothwithstanding said demurrer the parties and court subsequently regard the issue as found thereon and adjudicated accordingly.

*Darnaby, for appellants.*

*James E. Cantrill, for appellees.*

Inasmuch as Emison had possession and enjoyed the place for about about two years, whatever might have been right and equitable had the terms of the parol sale clearly appeared, yet even under the most imposing equitable circumstances courts have always held that the terms of parol sales should clearly appear, and when the price or terms of payment have been left dubious, they have refused to enforce such contracts. In this case Emison’s letters do evidence a sale, but at what price or when to be paid appears neither therein nor in the other evidence; therefore, it does not come within the principles announced in *Harrow vs. Johnson, 3 Met.,*503, *and Hill’s Admr. vs.*Spalding, *Exr., 1 Duvall, 219,*because here none of the purchase price has been paid, nor does the terms of the sale appear; that the land was to be paid for in three installments may be inferred from the letters, but when to be paid or for how much does not appear in the case.

Such a parol contract cannot be enforced, and the court properly adjudged a partition.

The question of improvements and rents and profits have not yet been adjudicated, but is still pending.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONNIE D. RAINEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00199-D-1)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie D. Rainey appeals from the district court’s order 

dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration 

of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 (2012) motion and denying his related motions. The court 

construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Rainey’s motion 

was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but in substance a successive 

§ 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399–

400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 

531–32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) 

motion from an unauthorized successive habeas motion). Rainey

is therefore not required to obtain a certificate of 

appealability to appeal the district court’s order. See McRae, 

793 F.3d at 400. In the absence of prefiling authorization from 

this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear 

Rainey’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) 

(2012).

Additionally, we construe Rainey’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on 

either:
3

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Rainey’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion.

With respect the district court’s denial of Rainey’s 

motions for a copy of its docket and to withdraw his guilty 

plea, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Rainey, No. 5:10-cr-00199-D-1 (E.D.N.C. 

Apr. 28, 2016). We thus affirm the district court’s order and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Jessie W. Suter *v.*L. Briscoe.

Demurrer — Sufficiency of Petition.

A demurrer should not be sustained, where the petition alleges that in the former suit, the plaintiff was induced not to put in his defense, by false and fraudulent promises and assurances by the then plaintiff.

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 21, 1869.

*Craddock &*Trabue, *for appellant.*

Drane, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The only question in this case, is whether the demurrer of the defendant to the plaintiff’s petition was properly sustained.

The allegations of the petition being taken as confessed on demurrer, it seems to us, if they were true, they were sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief. The petition discloses a sufficient defense to the action at law as existing when it is alleged, the defendant who was plaintiff in the first suit, by false and fraudulent promises, representations and assurances, induced the plaintiff to forego putting in his. defense. The averments of the petition sufficiently explain the subsequent failure of the plaintiff to defend the action against him and show why he did not and might not reasonably have discovered that the defendant had in violation of his agreement taken judgment against him.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the said demurrer and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6437

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRENCE J. WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-01-190; CA-03-732) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence J. White, Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Terrence J. White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 25, 2015

NO. 03-14-00236-CR

Kevin Todd Hardin, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

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

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

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

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Case 2:15-mj-01747-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01747-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01747-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul Taylor,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04384-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9905 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"STS-121","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GP7ax1i1iC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-121\/\">STS-121<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-121\/embed\/#?secret=GP7ax1i1iC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-121” — NASA\" data-secret=\"GP7ax1i1iC\" 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","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/word-image-2657.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
plus plus provided,
however




---



##### 



Patent Enforcement Litigation.
    * * *




---



##### 



Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
    
    
    
    Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co.By:
    
    Daniel
J. Carbery
    
    
    
    By:
    
    Benjamin L. PalleikoTitle:       Sr. VP, Operation
    
    
    
    
    
    Title: Sr. VP, Corporate
DevelopmentDate: July 16, 2008
    
    
    
    
    

and Chief Financial OfficerDate: July 16, 2008
#### Celia Anderson et al *v.*Maney Anderson et al.

Lands — Improvements—Permissive Use — Restitution.

Where a tract of land is permitted to be used for a considerable time, and good and lasting improvements are made by the tenant by will, his estate should not be charged rent for same, unless an equitable settlement be made for such ameliorations.

APPEAL FROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 11, 1870.

*542
      *Muir &*Wickliffe, *for appellants.*

Johnson, *for appellees.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The land exchanged by appellees with the ancestor of appellants is described in their deed, with such particularity, giving not only the metes and bounds, but the name of the vendor of their testator, and the quantity, that it leaves no doubt that the Cosby tract alone was the only land exchanged by appellees, and' that they permitted their brother the ancestor of appellants to go upon and occupy the 16 acre tract, that which is now in controversy, as a favor; perhaps without defining the length of time he would be permitted to occupy it. But after he went on the land, the evidence tends to show that he made lasting and valuable improvements, by building a dwelling house, and other improvements, all of which required an outlay of money and labor, for which appellants should be remunerated to the extent of the amelioration of the land at the time. A majority of the court *(Peters*dissenting) therefore hold that a court of equity, (as appellee stood by and saw and impliedly assented to the expenditure of money in making said improvements) will not dispossess appellants until appellees remunerate them for the amelioration on the land by said improvements. But appellees will be entitled to reasonable rents of the premises, and the case should be referred to the master to ascertain value of rents, and 'ameliorations, and adjust the accounts of each on equitable principles.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to refer the case to the master to ascertain and report how much the present value of the land is enhanced by reason of the lasting improvements made thereon by appellants, and their ancestor, without regard to the original cost; but how much more the land is now worth by reason of said improvements as they are, than it would be without them.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"NASA Prepares for Future Moon Exploration with International Undersea Crew","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qCfZHJmnQq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/analog-field-testing\/nasa-prepares-for-future-moon-exploration-with-international-undersea-crew\/\">NASA Prepares for Future Moon Exploration with International Undersea Crew<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/analog-field-testing\/nasa-prepares-for-future-moon-exploration-with-international-undersea-crew\/embed\/#?secret=qCfZHJmnQq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Prepares for Future Moon Exploration with International Undersea Crew” — NASA\" data-secret=\"qCfZHJmnQq\" 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","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/neemo22_best_of_day.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BERNARD TITTI SAMBA, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 03-1267

JOHN ASHCROFT, United States

Attorney General,

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A78-353-376)

Submitted: December 10, 2003

Decided: December 23, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters,

Assistant Director, James E. Grimes, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,

D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Bernard Titti Samba, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board")

affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we

deny the petition for review. 

In his petition, Samba first challenges the immigration judge’s

determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To

obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an

alien "must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling

that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We

have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Samba fails

to show the evidence compels a contrary result. 

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Samba’s

applications for withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture, both of which require the applicant to

make a more stringent showing to qualify for relief. To qualify for

withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate "a clear probability of persecution." INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-

31 (1987). To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an

applicant must establish that "it is more likely than not that he or she

would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." 8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Because Samba fails to show he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standards for withholding

of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

Finally, Samba contends he was denied due process because the

Board failed to consider on appeal new evidence not raised before the

immigration judge. We find this claim is without merit. 

2 SAMBA v. ASHCROFT
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED

SAMBA v. ASHCROFT 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"STS-51D","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VIVXOELhMd\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-51d\/\">STS-51D<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-51d\/embed\/#?secret=VIVXOELhMd\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-51D” — NASA\" data-secret=\"VIVXOELhMd\" 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","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/word-image-1228.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":453}