alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Corti,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03619-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/14/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8927 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Shaw Cowart, L.L.P.

1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 100

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 499-8900

Ethan L. Shaw (TX Bar No. 18140480)

Matthew J. Riley (TX Bar No. 24070500)

Justin W. Fishback (TX Bar No. 24056736)

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 100

Austin, Texas 78701

elshaw@shawcowart.com 

mriley@shawcowart.com

jfishback@shawcowart.com 

(512) 499-8900 telephone

(512) 320-8906 facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiff Brockett Wagner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Brockett Wagner,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

 Defendants.

No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

Civil Action No.: 2-16-CV-00555-DGC

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Brockett Wagner, hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1

st day of March, 2016.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 920 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 2
-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

SHAW COWART, LLP

By: /s/ Ethan L. Shaw 

 Ethan L. Shaw (TX Bar No. 18140480)

Matthew J. Riley (TX Bar No. 24070500)

Justin W. Fishback (TX Bar No. 24056736)

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 100

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 499-8900 telephone

(512) 320-8906 facsimile

elshaw@shawcowart.com 

mriley@shawcowart.com

jfishback@shawcowart.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Brockett Wagner

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this 1

st day of March, 2016, I electronically transmitted the 

foregoing Demand for Jury Trial to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the attorneys who are registered with the Court’s 

electronic filing system.

/s/ Ethan L. Shaw

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 920 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2
#### James Carson *v.*S. F. Thompson.

Instructions — Failure to Object — Error Waived.

Where instruction sare not objected to when offered, nor excepted to when given, the error, if any, was waived.

Evidence — Weight—Province of Jury.

Where the evidence is conflicting, it is the province of the jury to weigh and determine the facts, and unless their finding is clearly and palpably against the weight of the evidence, the Appellate Court will not interfere.

APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 11, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Whether there was any error in the instructions given at-the instance of appellee this court can not inquire because they were *66not objected to when offered nor excepted to when given nor afterwards whereby the error if any was committed by the court was waived as has been too often 'decided by this court to require any citation of authority.

Middleton, *for appellant.*

*Bullock &*Davis, *for appellee.*

On the next question that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence — It is necessary only to remark that the evidence was conflicting and it was the province of the jury to weigh and determine the facts, and having decided how they were, their finding is not so clearly and palpably against the weight of the evidence as to authorize this court to interfere.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES WILLIAMS.

September 26, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Filed 6/21/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2011 ND 102

In the Interest of C.L., a minor child

Natalie Anderson, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

C.L., minor child, 

C.K., Mother, 

C.L., Father, 

Guardian Ad Litem Barb Oliger; 

and the Executive Director of 

Human Services Department of ND, Respondents

C.L., Father, Appellant

No. 20110111

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Bryan D. Denham (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for petitioner and appellee.

Kent M. Morrow (on brief), 411 North Fourth Street, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2155, for appellant.

Interest of C.L.

No. 20110111

Per Curiam.

[¶1]C.L., father of the minor C.L., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights.  C.L. argues the juvenile court made insufficient findings and improperly considered excluded evidence.  The district court found that the minor C.L. was deprived and that he had been in foster care for over six hundred consecutive days.  These findings are not clearly erroneous, and we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).  See In re L.J., 2007 ND 74, ¶ 2, 734 N.W.2d 342 (“a court may terminate parental rights solely on a finding of (1) deprivation and (2) that the child has been in foster care . . . for at least four hundred fifty out of the previous six hundred sixty nights”) (quotations omitted).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Apollo 1","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WRbdzQCf9Y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/apollo-1\/\">Apollo 1<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/apollo-1\/embed\/#?secret=WRbdzQCf9Y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Apollo 1” — NASA\" data-secret=\"WRbdzQCf9Y\" 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\/05\/S66-36742orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":621}
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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Bradley Voris, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Sydney Rose Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02054-PHX-SMM 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice. 

(Doc. 163.) The parties have agreed to dismiss this action with prejudice, with each party 

to be responsible for its own costs and attorneys’ fees, except as outlined in the parties’ 

settlement agreement. (Id.) 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with 

Prejudice. (Doc. 163.) Each party shall be responsible for its own costs and attorneys’ fees, 

except as outlined in the parties’ settlement agreement. (Doc. 161.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action in 

its entirety. 

 Dated this 14th day of December, 2018. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02054-SMM Document 164 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2





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 on Form 10-Q of Perkins & Marie
Callender’s Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended April 19, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Fred T. Grant, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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:
June 3, 2009


BY:/s/ Fred T. Grant, Jr.Fred
      T. Grant, Jr.Chief
      Financial
Officer
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 24, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-01022-CV
CAE SIMUFLITE, INC. AND AMERI CAN FLYERS, INC., Appellants V. VICTOR MAURICIO AGUILAR TALA VERA, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JUAN JOSE AGUILAR TALAVERA, DECEASED, MICHELLE DENISSE AGUILAR GONZALEZ, HEITRIAN NAXYELI AGUILAR GONZALEZ, ZIANYA NATALIA MARISA AGUILAR GONZALEZ, PABL O GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LUIS OVIDIO GONZALEZ FLORES, DE CEASED, LORENA GUADALUPE FLORES BARRON, AND INGRID YANEL ALONSO MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FR IEND OF L.M. G.A., A MINOR, Appellees
On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-05624

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Seeking to appeal the trial court’s in terlocutory order denying their respective
motions to dismiss appelle es’ claims against them under Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 91a, appellants have filed a petition for permissive appeal. We deny the–2– petition and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

.
C ODE A NN . § 51.014(f); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3, 42.3(a).

211022F.P05 /Robert D. Bu r ns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

CAE SIMUFLITE, INC. AND AMERICAN FLYERS, INC., Appellants

No. 05-21-01022-CV V.

VICTOR MAURICIO AGUILAR TALAVERA, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JUAN JOSE AGUILAR TALAVERA, DECEASED, MICHELLE DENISSE AGUILAR GONZALEZ, HEITRIAN NAXYELI AGUILAR GONZALEZ, ZIANYA NATALIA MARISA AGUILAR GONZALEZ, PABLO GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LUIS OVIDIO GONZALEZ FLORES, DECEASED, LORENA GUADALUPE FLORES BARRON, AND INGRID YANEL ALONSO MORALES, INDI VIDUALLY AND On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-05624. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating.–4– AS NEXT FRIEND OF L.M.G.A., A MINOR, Appellees

In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellees VICTOR MAURICIO AGUILAR TALAVERA, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JUAN JOSE AGUILAR TALAVERA, DECEASED, MICHELLE DENISSE AGUILAR GONZALEZ, HEITRIAN NAXYELI AGUILAR GONZALEZ, ZIANYA NATALIA MARISA AGUILAR GONZALEZ, PABLO GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ESTATE OF LUIS OVIDIO GONZALEZ FLORES, DECEASED, LORENA GUADALUPE FLORES BARRON, AND INGRID YANEL ALONSO MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF L.M.G.A., A MINOR recover their costs of this appeal from appellants CAE SIMUFLITE, INC. AND AMERICAN FLYERS, INC.

Judgment entered January 24, 2022
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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raul Varela,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-15-01971-PHX-JJT

ORDER

At issue are the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Raul Varela on 

October 1, 2015 (Doc. 1), to which Charles Ryan and the Atty. Gen. of the state of 

Arizona filed a Response (Doc. 13); and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

prepared in this matter by United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 21), 

which recommends that this Court deny the Petition.

The time for any party to file objections to the R&R ran as of November 29, 2016. 

No party filed any objections, either as of that date or at any time thereafter. Such failure 

to file objections to the R&R is considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo

consideration of the issues. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003) (en banc). It also constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the R&R. See Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3rd 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, this Court has undertaken 

de novo review of the issues presented in the Petition and associated briefing. Upon that 

review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s recommendations are 

Case 2:15-cv-01971-JJT Document 22 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

wholly sound. The Court adopts in whole Judge Metcalf’s R&R and the underlying 

reasoning. The Court expressly finds sufficient evidence was presented to the jury at trial 

in the underlying matter from which that jury could rationally conclude that all elements 

of Count 3 of the charges against Petitioner were met. And in any event, the conclusion 

of the Arizona Court of Appeals to that effect was not unreasonable. For all of those 

reasons, the Court will deny the Petition.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the R&R (Doc. 21) in whole.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(Doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability upon the 

Court’s conclusion that jurists of reason would not find its assessment of the 

constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong.

Dated this 13th day of February, 2017.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01971-JJT Document 22 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.2
 Director Compensation Policy
 for Non-Employee Directors of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
 As approved by the Board of Directors on February 13, 2004

and last amended on July 30, 2008
 Retainer *
    
    $38,000 annuallyBoard Meeting Fees*
    
    $2,000 per meetingCommittee Meeting Fees*
    
    $1,200 per meetingLead Independent Director Retainer*
    
    $25,000 annuallyAudit Chair Retainer*
    
    $12,000 annuallyOther Chair Retainer*
    
    $7,500 annuallyContinuing Education Expenses
    
    Reasonable and customary expensesPersonal use of corporate aircraft
    
    10 hours of flight time
per calendar year**Annual Grant of Restricted Stock Units
    
    $135,000 market value, restricted stock units***
  *
    
    Fees are to be paid at the end of each quarter for service during that quarter. Fees for
service during part of a quarter will be pro rated.**
    
    (1) 10 hours are available to each director each calendar year. Unused hours do not
accumulate from one year to the next.




---



##### 



***
    
    Automatically awarded once annually through the King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Incentive Plan.
     Notes to Schedule of Compensation for Non-Management Directors:
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We have issued our report dated January 23, 1998 accompanying the
consolidated financial statements included in the 1997 Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of Royal
Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1997. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-4 (No. 33-78310
and 33-80616) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-25855).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
March 25, 1998
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Nos. 94-2901, 94-2989. Timothy Edward WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. Robert A. BUTTERWORTH, The Attorney General for the State of Florida, Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees. March 11, 1996. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 93-1488-CIV-J-10), Wm. Terrell Hodges, Judge. Before KRAVITCH, EDMONDSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: Appellant's "emergency notice to the court for corrections," construed as a motion to correct this court's opinion of December 7, 1995, 70 F.3d 573, is GRANTED. As corrected, the first sentence of footnote one reads as follows: White also appears to have made the argument that he was "in custody" as a result of the 1987 conviction because Alabama had placed a detainer on him for the conviction that should have run concurrently with his 1987 sentence.
#### DAVID SLACKMAN v. STUART J. FRIEDMAN, M.D.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"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":"Artemis I Mission Map","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"REb70KFwjI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/artemis-i-mission-map-nov\/\">Artemis I Mission Map<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/artemis-i-mission-map-nov\/embed\/#?secret=REb70KFwjI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Artemis I Mission Map” — NASA\" data-secret=\"REb70KFwjI\" 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\/02\/artemis-i-mission-map-nov.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}