alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

In Re Bard IVC Filters Products 

Liability Litigation 

No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

SHERR-UNA BOOKER, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C.R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey 

corporation and BARD PERIPHERAL 

VASCULAR, an Arizona corporation, 

Defendants. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine #10 Evidence That Defendants 

Needed FDA Consent Before Adding a Warning to its Labeling or Issuing a Recall, the 

Court hereby GRANTS the motion. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9875-1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 1
M

U

R

P

H

Y, S

C

H

MIT

T, H

A

T

H

A

W

A

Y & WILSO

N, P.L.L.C.

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

P o s t O f f i c e B o x 5 9 1

P r e s c o t t , A r i z o n a 8 6 3 0 2 - 0 5 9 1

( 9 2 8 ) 4 4 5 - 6 8 6 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Milton W. Hathaway, Jr., Esq.

AZ State Bar No. 005442

MURPHY, SCHMITT, HATHAWAY & WILSON, P.L.L.C.

Attorneys at Law

325 W. Gurley Street, Suite 102

Post Office Box 591

Prescott, Arizona 86302-0591

(928) 445-6860

info@mshwlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Rose, et al., 

Plaintiff,

vs.

William B. Pribil, et al.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:15-cv-08150-DGC

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Assigned to Hon. David G. Campbell

TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR

THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA:

NOTICE IS GIVEN HEREBY, pursuant to Rule 40.2(d), LRCiv, that the above-entitled

and numbered action has been compromised and settled and will be dismissed.

///

///

///

///
M

U

R

P

H

Y, S

C

H

MIT

T, H

A

T

H

A

W

A

Y & WILSO

N, P.L.L.C.

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

P o s t O f f i c e B o x 5 9 1

P r e s c o t t , A r i z o n a 8 6 3 0 2 - 0 5 9 1

( 9 2 8 ) 4 4 5 - 6 8 6 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

The parties wish to give notice of settlement to the Court so that all further proceedings before

the Honorable David G. Campbell may be vacated.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2017.

MURPHY, SCHMITT, HATHAWAY&WILSON,P.L.L.C.

By: s/Milton W. Hathaway, Jr. 

Milton W. Hathaway, Jr., Esq.

P. O. Box 591

Prescott, AZ 86302-0591

Attorneys for Defendants

2
M

U

R

P

H

Y, S

C

H

MIT

T, H

A

T

H

A

W

A

Y & WILSO

N, P.L.L.C.

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

P o s t O f f i c e B o x 5 9 1

P r e s c o t t , A r i z o n a 8 6 3 0 2 - 0 5 9 1

( 9 2 8 ) 4 4 5 - 6 8 6 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Milton W. Hathaway, Jr., an attorney, do hereby certify that on this 6th day of February,

2017, I electronically submitted the foregoing NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT using the

CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following

CM/ECF registrants:

Joel B. Robbins, Esq.

Anne E. Findling, Esq.

ROBBINS & CURTIN, p.l.l.c.

301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite B-100

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MURPHY, SCHMITT, HATHAWAY, & WILSON, P.L.L.C. 

By: s/Milton W. Hathaway, Jr. 

Milton W. Hathaway, Jr. 

3
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








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Imagin Molecular Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Joseph G. Oliverio, as Chief Executive Officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:





(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d), as
applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:
      November 6, 2008
            /s/ Joseph G.
      OliverioJoseph
      G. OliverioChief
      Executive Officer, Director








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Imagin Molecular Corporation and will be retained by Imagin Molecular
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129916 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 129916 

 COA: 255816 
 Wayne CC: 03-012008-01 

BRIAN MATTHEW McCLAIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2005 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I dissent from the majority’s decision to deny leave. MCL 750.520d(1)(b) 

provides that a person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree if the person 

engages in sexual penetration by “force or coercion,” which term is defined in MCL 

750.520b(1)(d)(ii) and (f)(v) to include the act of overcoming a victim “through 

concealment or by the element of surprise.” Because I do not believe that the prosecutor 

presented sufficient evidence of such conduct, I would reverse this conviction. 

Here, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that defendant did anything to 

“conceal” his identity from, or to “surprise,” the complainant, much less engage in any 

force or coercion. Unlike the defendant in People v Crippen, 242 Mich App 278 (2000), 

with whom defendant has been compared by the Court of Appeals, defendant did not 

disguise himself in any way, and did absolutely nothing to prevent the complainant from 

seeing who had climbed into her bed. Although the complainant asserted that she 

consented to defendant’s presence, and voluntarily engaged in sexual foreplay and 

intercourse, under the mistaken belief that defendant was actually her fiancé, there was 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

simply no affirmative conduct by defendant that reasonably suggests that he “overcame” 

the complainant “through concealment or by the element of surprise.” 

Moreover, it simply defies common experience that complainant would engage in 

sexual foreplay and sexual intercourse with the defendant for more than 20 minutes under 

the mistaken apprehension that he was her fiancé, especially given that her fiancé 

weighed over 100 pounds more than the 125-pound defendant. Once she allegedly 

learned his identity, her response was to chide him for his conduct, and make coffee for 

both of them. 

Defendant’s conduct while at his friend’s home, in entering the bedroom of the 

fiancé of his friend’s father, cannot be condoned. Whatever the propriety of this conduct, 

however, it did not amount to the commission of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. 

t0221 

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. 

February 24, 2006 

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tanessa T. McKnight,

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-18-00070-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: January 12, 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 9754 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,558
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,115
<PP&E>                                           8,028
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,198
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,548
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,571
<SALES>                                         39,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,859
<CGS>                                           21,897
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    172
<INCOME-TAX>                                        79
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 93
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        93
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-30852 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee
v. SHAWNA TICKLES, also known as Shawna Tickless, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

No. 10-31085 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee
v. JABAR GIBSON, Defendant - Appellant U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 14, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 10-31085 Document: 00511956439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2012Nos. 10-30852 10-31085 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: After our opinion was issued in these consolidated cases, th e S u p reme Court decided Dorsey v. United States , 132 S . C t . 2 3 2 1 (2012). Dorsey held, contrary to our opinion, that the more lenient penalties of the Fair Sentencing Ac t (“Act”) apply to offenders who committed an offense before the A c t w a s passed, but were sentenced after the Act was enacted. We therefore VACATE and REMAND these cases for resentencing consistent with the Court’s holding in Dorsey .

2 Case: 10-31085 Document: 00511956439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2012
#### Adams *v.*Beem and Another.

In error.

*Tuesday, December*8.

IF the defendant in a Court of error rely upon a release of errors, the release must be specially pleaded (1).

(1)

 To an assignment of errors, the defendant may plead or demur. Pleas in error are comnion or special. The *common*plea, or *joinder*as it is more frequently called, is *in nullo esl erratum,*or that there *is no error in the record or*proceedings; which is in the nature of a demurrer, and at once refers the matter of laM. arising thereon to the judgment of the Court. *Special*pleas contain matters in confession and avoidance, as a release of errors, or the statute of limitations, &c.; to which the plaintiff in error may reply or demur. 2 Tidd’s Prac. 1150, 1154.
Order entered March 13, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01040-CR

No. 05-19-01041-CR

No. 05-19-01042-CR

JOE ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-17189-R, F18-76663-R, F18-17190-R

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s March 6, 2020 motions for extension of 

time to file his brief in these appeals and to supplement the records. In the latter, 

appellant asks that we order supplemental clerk’s records for each of these cases to 

include a bill of cost.

Our review shows that bills of cost are in the October 24, 2019 clerk’s 

records for each of the above appeals (pp. 75-76, pp. 64-65, pp. 83-84,
respectively). Therefore, we DENY appellant’s motion to supplement the records

as moot.

We GRANT the motion for extension and ORDER the brief received by the 

Court on March 6, 2020, filed as of the date of this order. 

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settle d principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40456 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL BRAD LASSITER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BILL WELK, In House Investigator for Smith County Jail; CAROL “CURLY” BEDDINGFIELD, Lt. in Charge of Smith County Jail Medium and Low Risk
Facilities; J.B. SMITH, Sheriff of Smith County; MARVIN WINTERS, Captain over Smith County Jail Operations, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas
(6:94-CV-835)

December 4, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Brad Lassiter appeals the dismissal of his in forma pauperi s civil rights

complaint as frivolous. We are to construe liberally the legal arguments presented by a p roH aines v. Kerner

, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Grant v. Cuellar

, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995);

Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed.R.App.P. 28(a).

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1994).

Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

F ed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Louisiana v. Litton Mortgage Co. , 50 F.3d 1298 (5th Cir. 1995); Joplin v. Bias , 631 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1980).

5th Cir. Loc.R. 42.2.

2 se appellant in his brief. 1

Stripped to essentials, Lassiter contends in his brief that he was deprived of

constitutional rights by an alleged seizure of legal and nonlegal material, a denial of access

to the law library, a denial of a hardcover Bible, secondary tobacco smoke, an inadequate

medical observation facility, and the placement of color television sets in a portion of the jail.

We find no error in the district court’s disposition of these issues. 2

Lassiter also challenges the manner in which the district court handled his case.

Again, we find no error. 3 Additionally, Lassiter maintains that he was entitled to a default

judgment. The district court did not err in allowing the defendant to answer the amended

complaint. 4

The instant appeal is frivolous. We dismiss it as such. 5

W e caution Lassiter that the filing of additional frivolous appeals will invite the

imposition of sanctions. He is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not merely present issues previously considered and rejected by this court.

DISMISSED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Public Affairs Officer Nilufar Ramji","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZorCINp42o\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/jsc2023e030680-alt\/\">Public Affairs Officer Nilufar Ramji<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/jsc2023e030680-alt\/embed\/#?secret=ZorCINp42o\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Public Affairs Officer Nilufar Ramji” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ZorCINp42o\" 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\/07\/jsc2023e030680_alt.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

07-3071

RICHARD H. CARLSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

Peter B. Broida , of Arlington, Virginia, argued for petitioner.

Joyce G. Friedman , Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit

Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the

brief were B. Chad Bungard , General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel , Deputy General

Counsel, and Sara B. Rearden , Acting Associate General Counsel.

Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

07-3071

RICHARD H. CARLSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

in CASE NO(S). CH0752040095-C-2

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (LOURIE, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED July 17, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                                CERTIFICATION OF
                  VINCENT J. DESOSTOA, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         OF SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(B)


         The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Seabulk
International, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




                                            -----------------------------
                                            Name: Vincent J. deSostoa
                                            Date: March 30, 2004
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT E. PARKER.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

CHERYL GAFFNER, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STRATTON RESTORATION, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

CV-15-02166-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff having filed a Stipulation for Extension of Time and good cause 

appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulation (Doc. 12) is granted such that the Rule 

16(b) conference has been rescheduled for to June 15, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. All other 

deadlines in the Court’s Order (Doc. 10) will be calculated from that date. 

 Dated this 31st day of March, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02166-JAT Document 13 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"Artemis I Prelaunch","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bfs1HRXrs5\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-nhq202211140010\/\">Artemis I Prelaunch<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-nhq202211140010\/embed\/#?secret=bfs1HRXrs5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Artemis I Prelaunch” — NASA\" data-secret=\"bfs1HRXrs5\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/NHQ202211140010\/NHQ202211140010~large.jpg?w=600&h=1919&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1919}