alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Deputy *v.*Tobias.

A defendant, after a verdict and judgment against him in assumpsit, filed a bill in chancery for a new trial on account of newly-discovered evidence; averring that due diligence had been used, without effect, to procure the evidence previously to the trial: *Held,*on demurrer, that the bill would lie.-

ERROR to the *Jefferson*Circuit Court.

Holman, *J.*

Deputy filed his bill in chancery in the *Jefferson*
      *312Circuit Court against *Tobias,*for the purpose of obtaining a new trial in an action of assumpsit, in which *Tobias*had obtained a judgment against him on the common law side of said Court. The bill states that *Tobias,*by a parol contract, *undertook to*perform for *Deputy*certain work and labour, as a carpenter, at a specified price, a small part of which was to be paid in hand, and the residue when the work was completed. That *Tobias*performed the principal part of the work, but not in a workmanlike manner; and refused to perform the remainder. That *Deputy*paid him that part *of*the consideration which was to be advanced, and a considerable part of that which was not due until the work was finished, under a belief that *To-bias*would fulfil his contract. That *Tobias,*after abandoning his undertaking, commenced an action against *Deputy*for the work and labour so performed under the special agreement; and declared in two general counts — one an indebitatus assumpsit, the other a quantum meruit; to which *Deputy*pleaded non-assumpsit and payment, but was unable, after using all the diligence in his power, to find any witness by whom he could prove the special contract; and, consequently, a verdict and judgment were obtained by *Tobias*for the value of the work so performed. That after the rendition of the judgment, *Deputy*discovered that by the evidence of two witnesses (who are named together with their places of residence,) he could legally and fully prove the special contract, and also the failure of *Tobias to*perform that contract. Prayer for a new trial of the issues at law.

To this bill *Tobias*demurred; and the Court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill.

The demurrer should have been overruled. We think the failure to defend at law is sufficiently accounted for; and, if the contract was as is stated by the hill, the verdict and judgment ought not to stand. The only plausible ground of demurrer is, that *Deputy*should have obtained, by a bill of discovery, the confession of *Tobias*to be used in the trial at law. But a bill of discovery is the dernier resort in obtaining testimony; inasmuch as when it is resorted to, it shuts the door against every other method. Therefore it is purely discretionary with every suit- or, whether he will file such a bill or not; and he can never be considered in laches for not seeking a discovery from the opposite party.

*313
      *Stevens,*for the plaintiff

Moore, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings Subsequent to the demurrer are set aside, with costs., Cause re'jpaanded, with directions to permit the defendant *to*withdraw Jiis demurrer and answer the bill»
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David McIntyre,

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-17-03416-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: October 26, 2017 /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 8432 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE BENJAMIN JOSEPH

GUTIERREZ,

RELATOR

. §

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 314

- C V

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator

, Benjamin Joseph Gutierrez , has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus

against the Honorable Laura Strathmann, Judge of the 388 th District Court of El Paso County,

Texas . He asks that we order Respondent to grant his motion to dismiss a pending modification

action in cause number 2010CM094 filed by the Real Party in Interest, Araceli Jiminez

. Relator

has also filed a motion to stay proceedings in the trial court, including a pre trial hearing and the

trial se tting. We deny both the motion to stay and the petition for writ of mandamus.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must meet two requirements. First, the

relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insu rance

Company of America , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate

that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id . at 136. Based on the record before us, we

conclude that Relator ha s not established he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we- 2

-

deny both the motion to stay and the petition for writ of mandamus

.

October 14, 2015

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

McC lure, C.J., Not Participating
Case 2:98-cv-00940-PGR Document 46 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:98-cv-00940-PGR Document 46 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:98-cv-00940-PGR Document 46 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 3
### NU M BER 13- 07- 0049 5-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ TH E L A M A R COMPA NY, LL C., A pp ellan t, v . DEL FIN O F LOR ES, J R. A pp ellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ___ On A pp eal f rom th e 1 07t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e C hi ef

Just i ce Val dez and Just i ces Yañez and B enav i des M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am T he p arties to th is appe al have f iled a joint m otion asking the Court to dismiss this appeal
. Acc ordin g to the moti on, the par ti es hav e re ached an ag re ement to settl e and compromis e the ir

di fferences . Theyas k t his C our t t o render

j udg ment ef

fectuati ng the par ti es’ ag re ement. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( a) (2 )( A)
.2

The par ti es hav e ag re ed th at t he appe al shou ld be di smi ss ed, t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt s houl d bec ome final , and the jud g ment s houl d be sat is fied by the p ay ment of the settl ement amoun t. W e G RA N T t h e j o i n t mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s . W e R E N D E R j u d g me n t e ffe c tuati ng the par ti es' se ttl ement ag re ement, and D ISM ISS the a ppeal
. Appel lant sh a ll b ear the cos ts of this appeal
. See i

d. 42.1 (d).
PERC UR IAM
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and fil ed th is the 24 day of Apr il , 200 8. th
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Brazil Signs Artemis Accords","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"09KtHngAQh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/brazil-signs-artemis-accords\/\">Brazil Signs Artemis Accords<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/brazil-signs-artemis-accords\/embed\/#?secret=09KtHngAQh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Brazil Signs Artemis Accords” — NASA\" data-secret=\"09KtHngAQh\" 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\/2021\/06\/51249124241_0b57add416_k.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
Case 2:15-cr-01599-SPL Document 3 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01599-SPL Document 3 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01599-SPL Document 3 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements in the Company's quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements:
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          $7,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   $4,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              $154,054
<PP&E>                                         $32,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $186,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         $237,779
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    113,520
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                   (165,211)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                       $407,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              $407,833
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 $148,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              $366,455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                $(107,055)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $(0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.02)


</TABLE>
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Samuel Villegas Lopez, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-72-PHX-SMM

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED granting Respondents’ unopposed Motion for Extension of Time

to File Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 243). The response

is due April 20, 2012.

DATED this 13th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:98-cv-00072-SMM Document 245 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

         EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                   AS ADDED BY
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002


      In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Royal Bancshares of
Pennsylvania, Inc ("Royal") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jeffrey T. Hanuscin, Chief Financial Officer, 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 Royal as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
            Report.




                                                        /s/ Jeffrey T. Hanuscin
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Jeffrey T. Hanuscin
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        June 8, 2006.

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER








Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), the undersigned, Gary Quinn, Chief Executive Officer of FalconStor Software, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:





The Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Gary QuinnGary QuinnPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 11, 2016
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6817

DENNIS GENE PAULEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LORETTA SIMMONS GANDEE; KEVIN WAYNE GANDEE; MICHAEL CLIFFORD, Prosecutor; DAVID L. TUCKER, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-152-2) Submitted: December 17, 2004 Decided: January 3, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Gene Pauley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dennis Gene Pauley appeals the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pauley v. Gandee , No. CA-04-152-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 4, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3 MONTHS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                        51,615
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                 38,091
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              254,893
<PP&E>                        92,311
DEPRECIATION>                 13,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,196,067

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,241,808
<BONDS>                       1,936,961
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                      578
<OTHER-SE>                   (1,983,280)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,196,067
<SALES>                         215,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                215,520
<CGS>                           (70,404)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   (70,404)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (88,981)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (239,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (239,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                   (239,442)
<EPS-BASIC>                    (.041)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (.041)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Annual  Report of Five Star  Products,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
Dawson,  President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Charles Dawson
President
March 31, 2003
#### I.H. *v.*J.T.

[No. 1-375A60.

Filed July 3, 1975.

Rehearing denied August 12, 1975.

Transfer denied December 30, 1975.]

*675
      *Ronald Warrum,*of Evansville, for appellant.

*William C. Welborn, Jr.,*of Evansville, for appellee.

Robertson, C.J.

The plaintiff-appellant’s sole issue in this appeal is that the trial court’s finding of nonpaternity is contrary to law.

We affirm.

A review of the testimony favorable to the defendantappellee shows that the plaintiff testified that she and the defendant had sexual relations three times during February of 1973. She further testified about her subsequent pregnancy and the birth of a baby on November 16, 1973.

The defendant testified he had, in fact, had sexual relations with the plaintiff but denied any such conduct from November, 1972 through November, 1973. He also testified as to her use of birth control pills in late 1972 and that she had been seeing another man during the period of conception.

The plaintiff argues that the evidence is without conflict, therefore, the judgment is contrary to law. We believe that argument to be negated by the following quote from the paternity case of *Wyner*v. *Ellis*(1965), 136 Ind. App. 696, 204 N.E.2d 662:

> “Under the assignment . . . that the decision is contrary to law we must consider whether or not the evidence plus all reasonable inferences to be deduced therefrom would lead to a conclusion contrary to that of the trial court.” 204 N.E.2d at 665; *See also, Calvert*v. *London*(1965), 137 Ind. App. 595, 210 N.E.2d 376.

Since there was evidence from which the trier of fact could find or infer that the defendant did not have intercourse with the plaintiff during February, 1973, and that she may have been seeing another man during the same time, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that a conclusion contrary to the trial court’s judgment is required.

Judgment affirmed.

Lowdermilk and Lybrook, JJ., concur.

NOTE.—Reported at 330 N.E.2d 140.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jeffery Rubio","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jeffery-j-rubionasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Collects First Surface Science in Decades via Commercial Moon Mission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VvuBt6IJcL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/clps\/nasa-collects-first-surface-science-in-decades-via-commercial-moon-mission\/\">NASA Collects First Surface Science in Decades via Commercial Moon Mission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/clps\/nasa-collects-first-surface-science-in-decades-via-commercial-moon-mission\/embed\/#?secret=VvuBt6IJcL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Collects First Surface Science in Decades via Commercial Moon Mission” — NASA\" data-secret=\"VvuBt6IJcL\" 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\/2024\/03\/landing-wfov-angle-1-1.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":328}