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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 637

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against

the estate tax for certain transfers of real property for conservation purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 1997

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a

credit against the estate tax for certain transfers of

real property for conservation purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Open Space

5 Acquisition and Preservation Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF

7 REAL PROPERTY FOR CONSERVATION PUR8 POSES.

9 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Part II of subchapter A of

10 chapter 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
2

•HR 637 IH

1 to credits against tax) is amended by adding at the end

2 thereof the following new section:

3 ‘‘SEC. 2017. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF REAL

4 PROPERTY FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.

5 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—If the executor makes a

6 qualified conservation transfer of any real property (or in7 terest therein), there shall be allowed as a credit against

8 the tax imposed by section 2001 with respect to the estate

9 of the decedent an amount equal to the value (as deter10 mined under this chapter with respect to the estate of the

11 decedent) of such property (or interest therein).

12 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount allowed as a credit

13 under subsection (a) shall not exceed the amount of the

14 tax imposed by section 2001 with respect to the estate

15 of the decedent, reduced by the amount equal to the value

16 (as determined under this chapter with respect to the es17 tate of the decedent) of such property (or interest therein).

18 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED CONSERVATION TRANSFER.—For

19 the purposes of this section, the term ‘qualified conserva20 tion transfer’ means any transfer of any real property in21 cluded in the gross estate of the decedent (or any interest

22 therein) if—

23 ‘‘(1) such transfer is to an agency of the United

24 States,
3

•HR 637 IH

1 ‘‘(2) such transfer is accepted by such agency

2 for use exclusively for conservation purposes (as de3 fined in section 170(h)), and

4 ‘‘(3) such transfer is made without any pay5 ment or reimbursement from such agency.

6 ‘‘(d) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—No deduction

7 shall be allowed under this chapter with respect to any

8 transfer for which the estate claims the benefits of this

9 section.’’

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

11 for subchapter C of chapter 11 of such Code is amended

12 by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 2017. Credit for certain transfers of real property for conservation purposes.’’

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

14 this section shall apply to transfers made after the date

15 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Leroy Vaughn *v.*Z. Walters.

Appeals — Time Within Which to Prosecute.

As an appeal is required to be prosecuted within sixty days after the rendering of the judgment, and not after the day of the judgment, that day is included in the count.

APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 16, 1869.

Bowles, *for appellant.*

Burns, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

As the appeal is required to be prosecuted within 60' days after *the rendering of the*judgment, and not after the *day*of the judgment, that day is, as hitherto adjudged, included in the court. Consequently, 61 days had elapsed.

The clerk’s mistake and misadvice to the appellant on that subject did not constitute any defense against the motion to dismiss the appeal because it was not taken until the day after the expiration of 60 days from the rendition of the judgment. It was the appellant’s duty and that of his counsel also to know the' law and not trust the opinion of the clerk.

Besides, this record does not show *what judgment or by what court*it was appealed from, so as to enable this court to know whether the appeal to the circuit court was proper or allowable.

Wherefore the judgment dismissing the appeal cannot -be reversed, and is consequently *affirmed.*
1

Filed 8/10/21 P. v. Jones CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Colusa)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL GENE JONES, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C092901

(Super. Ct. No. CR618861)

The People charged defendant Michael Gene Jones, Jr., with second degree 

robbery and alleged that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the 

crime. Defendant pled no contest to the charge and admitted the firearm use allegation in 

exchange for a stipulated sentence of nine years in state prison. 

The parties stipulated the factual basis for the plea was the pre-plea report in 

Colusa County Superior Court case No. 61395-1, as well as the transcripts from 

preliminary hearings in Colusa County Superior Court cases Nos. 61886-1 and 61395-1. 

The pre-plea report demonstrates that on July 5, 2019, defendant, along with another 

individual, walked into a local bank and, using a gun, robbed the bank. Defendant was 

subsequently identified through DNA evidence and arrested. 
2

The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in state prison, in accordance 

with his plea agreement. The court also awarded defendant 393 days of custody credit 

and ordered him to pay various fines and fees. Defendant timely appealed and was 

granted a certificate of probable cause. 

DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural 

history of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there 

are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant 

was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the 

date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not 

filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find 

no errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ 

Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/ 

Blease, Acting P. J.

/s/ 

Renner, J.
#### John Williams' Executors *v.*R. T. Lindsay et ux.

Wills — Mistake—Parol Evidence.

So long as an unmodified will is permitted to stand of record, its prer visions must prevail over any parol evidence, however imposing.

APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 2, 1869.

*Marshall & Boyd, for appellants.*

*John O. Hodges, Timble, for appellees.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

The provisions of the will as to the advancements and the legacies must govern and not the parol evidence. If it were clear that a mistake was made by the testator or the draftsman, this would be made to appear on bill filed for the purpose, which is even then doubtful, but perhaps a legatee would be enjoined from asserting a claim which the testator never designed for him, but so long as the unmodified will is permitted to stand of record, its provisions must prevail over any parol evidence, however imposing.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
1

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

CLARK LAW FIRM, P.C.

63 East Main Street, Suite 501

Mesa, Arizona 85201

(480) 844-0039

etc@clarkfirm.com

Ezra T. Clark, III (I.D. No. 14998)

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LAURIE SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

NETWORK ALIGNMENT & BRAKES, 

INC., an Arizona corporation; SEAN 

WEBSTER and JANE DOE WEBSTER, 

husband and wife; SCOTT WEBSTER and 

JANE DOE WEBSTER 2, husband and wife, 

Defendants.

No. CV15-01740- PHX-DLR

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS 

WITH PREJUDICE AS TO ALL 

CLAIMS ALLEGED AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS 

The above-captioned Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) lawsuit has been settled. 

Plaintiff, Laurie Smith, and Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc., Sean Webster and Scott 

Webster respectfully move the Court to: (1) approve the Settlement Agreement that is attached 

hereto as Exhibit A; and (2) enter an Order dismissing with prejudice all of the claims that are 

alleged by Plaintiff against Defendants in the above-captioned matter. The parties respectfully 

submit that this motion should be granted because the proposed Settlement Agreement 

represents and fair and reasonable resolution of a bone fide dispute.

In support of their Joint Motion, Plaintiff and Defendants state as follows.

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 19 Filed 01/20/16 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

23

24

25

26

1. Plaintiff and Defendants have reached an agreement to fully and finally settle all 

of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. 

2. The terms of that agreement have been reduced to a written Settlement 

Agreement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.

3. Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully submit that this Motion should be granted 

because the proposed Settlement Agreement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of the 

parties’ dispute as to whether Plaintiff was employed in a position exempt from the overtime 

requirements of the FLSA, and whether back wages are due and owing.

4. As a material inducement for Defendants to enter into the Settlement Agreement, 

Plaintiff has agreed: (a) to cause each of the Defendants to be dismissed from the abovecaptioned matter with prejudice; and (b) to effectuate the dismissal with prejudice of all of the 

claims that are alleged (and that have been alleged) by Plaintiff against Defendants. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request that the Court approve the 

attached Settlement Agreement and enter an Order dismissing with prejudice the abovecaptioned Complaint against Defendants.

DATED this 20th day of January, 2016.

AGREED AND APPROVED:

PHILLIP DAYES, P.C. CLARK LAW FIRM, P.C.

/s/Trey Dayes /s/ Ezra T. Clark, III

Trey Dayes Ezra T. Clark, III

3101 N. Central Ave., #1500 63 East Main Street, 5th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Mesa, Arizona 85201

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 19 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Anderson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00270-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Fears Nachawati Law Firm

(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 2/16/2016, 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: February 19, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party 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 853 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

March 27, 2020

a0323 

# Order

Clerk March 27, 2020

159605(68)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159605

COA: 340033

Wayne CC: 16

- 008683

- FH

WALTER AARON KELLY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this C ourt’s December 20,

2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6453

WINFRED CAUSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER; WILLIAM WHITE, Warden of the Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cv-01768-TLW) Submitted: August 8, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winfred Causey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Winfred Causey, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Causey has not made the requisite showing. 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
Case 2:15-mj-01949-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/24/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01949-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/24/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01949-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/24/15 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63170-63171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25058]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics


Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Meeting and Agenda

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee will 
meet on Friday, November 21, 2014. The meeting will be held in the 
Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC.
    The Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on technical aspects of the collection 
and formulation of economic measures. The BLS presents issues and then 
draws on the expertise of Committee members representing specialized 
fields within the academic disciplines of economics, statistics and 
survey design.
    The meeting will be held in rooms 1 and 2 of the Postal Square 
Building Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for the meeting are 
as follows:

8:30 a.m. Commissioner's welcome and review of agency developments
9:00 a.m. Adjusting Major Sector Productivity Industry Multifactor 
Productivity to Account for Changes in the Composition of Labor
10:45 a.m. Updates on topics from past committee meetings:
    <bullet> Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) 
Undercount
    <bullet> How to Take Account of Internet Job Search in Measuring 
Unemployment in the Current Population Survey (CPS)
1:30 p.m. Discussion of future priorities
2:00 p.m. Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Redesign: Sampling 
and Estimation
4:00 p.m. Approximate conclusion

    The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the 
meeting should be directed to Lisa Fieldhouse, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics Technical Advisory Committee, on 202-691-5025. Individuals 
who require special accommodations should contact Ms. Fieldhouse at 
least two days prior to the meeting date.


[[Page 63171]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of October 2014.
Eric P. Molina,
Acting Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2014-25058 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"Making Fire Sense on Monroe Mountain","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VMoGiNzJYv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/firesensefire-pho-2023282-lrg\/\">Making Fire Sense on Monroe Mountain<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/firesensefire-pho-2023282-lrg\/embed\/#?secret=VMoGiNzJYv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Making Fire Sense on Monroe Mountain” — NASA\" data-secret=\"VMoGiNzJYv\" 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\/12\/firesensefire-pho-2023282-lrg.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"wfirst_beauty1_prores_1920x1080.mov_.00_00_17_16.still003","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"h4wvN04PUT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/wfirst_beauty1_prores_1920x1080-mov_-00_00_17_16-still003\/\">wfirst_beauty1_prores_1920x1080.mov_.00_00_17_16.still003<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/wfirst_beauty1_prores_1920x1080-mov_-00_00_17_16-still003\/embed\/#?secret=h4wvN04PUT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“wfirst_beauty1_prores_1920x1080.mov_.00_00_17_16.still003” — NASA\" data-secret=\"h4wvN04PUT\" 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\/2020\/05\/wfirst_beauty1_prores_1920x1080.mov_.00_00_17_16.still003.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Case 2:15-mj-01872-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01872-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01872-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 3