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

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the annual report of Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert F. Baldock,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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) 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.

Date: March 31, 2010

| | /s/
      Robert F. Baldock          
| | -------------------------------------
| | Robert F. Baldock                    
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
| | (principal executive officer)        

---
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Karl B. Hille","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/khille\/","title":"Goddard Engineers Improve NASA Lidar Tech for Exploration","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7JQzjAxMLe\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/goddard-tech\/cuttingedge-exploration-lidars\/\">Goddard Engineers Improve NASA Lidar Tech for Exploration<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/goddard-tech\/cuttingedge-exploration-lidars\/embed\/#?secret=7JQzjAxMLe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Goddard Engineers Improve NASA Lidar Tech for Exploration” — NASA\" data-secret=\"7JQzjAxMLe\" 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\/10\/2106-33-136.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### Tannehill *v.*Thomas.

In an action on a penal bond,' conditioned for the performance of covenants, if the plaintiff obtain judgment by default or on demurrer, the damages should be assessed by a jury. But if the action be on a promissory note or bill of exchange, or on a covenant for the payment of a sum certain, the damages may be assessed by the Court.

ERROR to the *Jefferson*Circuit Court. — Debt on a bond with a penalty of 224 dollars, conditioned for the conveyance of real estate. To the declaration, in which the breaches were assigned, there was a demurrer; but no joinder in demurrer. Leave was asked to withdraw the demurrer, though it does not *145appear to have been withdrawn. Final judgment for the plaintiff below, the defendant in error, without a writ of inquiry, for 124 dollars debt, with interest and costs.

Sullivan, for the plaintiff.

Dewey, for the defendant.

Blackford, J.

This judgment is not regularly on demurrer or by default. But supposing that to have been the case, the final judgment should not have been rendered without awarding a writ of inquiry. Where judgments on demurrer or by default are for the plaintiff, in actions on promissory notes and bills of exchange, or on covenants for the payment of a sum certain, the damages may be assessed without the intervention of a jury; because, in such cases, the quantum of damages depends upon figures, and if the calculation be correct, the result must be the same whether the assessment be made by the Court or by a jury, Doug. 315. — 1 H. Bl. 252, 529, 541. — 4 T. R. 275 (1). The present case however is of a very different kind. Here the bond upon which the suit was founded, is for the performance of covenants. In such a case, the statute expressly requires that the damages for the breaches assigned should be assessed by a jury. *Clark*et al.v. Goodwin, *July*term, 1820. —Stat. 1817, p.37. — 1 Will. Saund. 58, note (2).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the demurrer are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Stat. 4823, p. *297.*— Holdipp v. Otway, 2 Will. Saund. 106, and note 2. *Renner*v. *Marshall,*1 Wheat. 215, and note. So in covenant for mortgage money, *Berthen*v. *Street,*8 T. R. 326, or for non-payment of rent, *Byrom v. Johnson,*ib. 410, *Campion*v. *Crawshay,*6 Taunt. 356. But the law is otherwise in debt on simple contract for rent or use and occupation, *Campion v. Crawshay,*supra; and in assumpsit or debt for foreign money, *Maunsell v. Massareene,*5 T. R. 87, *Arden v. Connell,*5 Barn. and Ald. 885; and in actions on foreign judgments, *Messin*v. *Massareene,*4 T. R. 493. In Louisiana, however, where questions of fact in civil cases are tried by the Court unless either of the parties demand, a jury, if an action be brought on a judgment rendered in another state, the interest on that judgment may be computed and made part of the j udgment in *Louisiana,*without a writ of inquiry and the intervention of a jury. *Mayhew*v. *Thatcher,*6 Wheat. 129.

(2)

 Vide note 3 to *Clark v. Goodwin,*cited in the text. Ante, p.76.
Case: 1:20-cv-02633 Document #: 46 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:336
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

OAKLEY, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

FORFAR OUTDOORS STORE, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-02955

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 41(a)(1)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. 

(“Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action, with leave to reinstate within one hundred and eighty 

(180) days, as to the following Defendants:

Defendant Name Line No.

Forfar Outdoors Store 1

Shop2129047 Store 6

LAOTIE OUTDOOR Store 17

Shop5442221 Store 37

easylivingus 47

heybeautyday 67

Case: 1:20-cv-02955 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3718
2

Dated this 27th day of August 2020. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jake M. Christensen

Amy C. Ziegler

Justin R. Gaudio

Jake M. Christensen

Thomas J. Juettner

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312.360.0080 / 312.360.9315 (facsimile)

aziegler@gbc.law

jgaudio@gbc.law

jchristensen@gbc.law

tjjuettner@gbc.law

Counsel for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc.

Case: 1:20-cv-02955 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3719
**Exhibit 32.2****CFO CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 USC §1350, as adopted), Jeffrey T. Soukup, theChief Financial Officer of PlanetOut Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:          1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for    the period ended December 31, 2004, and to which this    Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 fully complies    with the requirements of Section 13(a) or    Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, and           2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company for the periods presented    therein.     **In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the30thday of March 2005.     /s/ Jeffrey T. Soukup       Jeffrey T. Soukup     Chief Financial Officer     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed aspart of this report. A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to PlanetOut Inc.and will be retained by PlanetOut Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WALTER SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 321 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of February, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Exhibit 4.1

                              [maxxzone letterhead]

                                  May 19, 2004

Eric L. Brown
370 Soi Phanid Annan, Suit 309
Klong Ton, Bangkok 10110
Thailand

Dear Mr. Brown:

         This letter agreement memorializes our agreement as to amending that
certain Consulting Services Agreement dated December 15, 2003, by and between
maxxZone.com, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and you (the "Agreement"), as amended
on April 22, 2004. All capitalized terms used herein shall be ascribed those
definitions provided for in the Agreement.

         Section 4.02 of the Agreement is hereby amended so that maxxZone.com,
Inc., shall issue an additional five million (5,000,000) shares of common stock
of maxxZone.com, Inc., to Consultant for the performance of the Consulting
Services to maxxZone.com, Inc.

         If you agree with the foregoing, please sign below and return a copy of
this letter to me by facsimile today and the original by overnight delivery.

                                            Sincerely,



                                            Roland Becker

Agreed and Accepted:




By:  _________________________________
        Eric L. Brown
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

January 20, 2016 

ERRATA 

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2015-1047

REDLINE DETECTION, LLC,

Appellant

v.

STAR ENVIROTECH, INC.,

Appellee

Decided: December 31, 2015

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following changes:

On page twenty-four, lines 1–9, replace the sentence

When asserting that a claimed invention would 

have been obvious, that party “must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a 

skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to 

achieve the claimed invention, and that the 

skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” PAR 

Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 
2 REDLINE DETECTION, LLC v. STAR ENVIROTECH, INC. 

1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). 

with the following sentence:

When asserting that a claimed invention would 

have been obvious, that party “must demonstrate . . . that a skilled artisan would have had 

reason to combine the teaching of the prior art 

references to achieve the claimed invention, and 

that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” 

PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 

1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted); see Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 

1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also 35 U.S.C. 

§ 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted 

under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the 

burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
#### Theodore Dreidel *v.*M. L. Virden, et al.

Factors and Brokers — Purchase by One of Commission Business — Liability for Consignment.

A commission merchant, who handles goods on consignment, transferred his business, by sale, to his vendee. He had on hand goodi, consigned to him for safe. Held that the purchaser became liable to the consignor to the extent of the goods on hand at the time of the transfer.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT. CHY. DIV.

December 6, 1870.

Opinion of the Oourt by

Judge Lindsay:

Withers was a commission merchant in the City of Louisville, and was the agent of Dreidel for the sale of Hummel’s extract of coffee, and about the 1st of March, 1869 had on hand something less than 300 boxes of said extract, for which there remained due to Dreidel $186.22.

*89
      *Demblitz & Wehile, for appellant.*

*Mix3 for appellee.*

On. the 1st of March, 1869, Virden became the successor of Withers, who, from that time, followed a different business. The two parties however carried on their respective avocations in the same house until about the middle of the following May.

Withers about that time left Louisville without settling with appellant, and has never returned. A day of two afterwards Virden changed his place of business and carried with bim the extract of coffee consigned by appellant to Withers for sale.

On the 18th of June, Dreidel brought this suit, and attached such of said extract as remained in the hands of appellees, and sought to subject the same to the payment of his claim against Withers. By the answer appellees claim to have purchased said extract from Withers in the usual course of trade and in perfect good faith and denied the right of Dreidel to subject it to the payment of his said claim against Withers. The chancellor dismissed appellant’s petition and discharged his order of attachment.

According to the joint circular of Virden and Withers issued March 1st, Virden became the sucecssor of Withers in the commission business, and if he acquired the possession of the coffee at that time, he held it as the successor of Withers and as the agent of Dreidel, and not in his own right.

If he did purchase it on the 14th of April, the fact that he purchased the whole lot at one time, and for greatly less than its market retail price, rebuts the idea that the purchase was made in the usual course of trade.

When we consider the fact that Virden removed his place of business the day after Withers left Louisville, and for the first time reduced the goods attached to his individual possession so far as it appears from this record, we are forced to conclude that the whole transaction of sale was fraudulent and that Virden participated in the fraud, and therefore, that the goods should be subjected to the payment of Dreidel’s claim. Wherefore the judgment dismissing his petition and discharging his order of attachment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF MRS. FIELDS FAMOUS BRANDS, LLC

 

The subsidiaries of Mrs. FieldsFamous Brands, LLC* and their respective state or jurisdiction of incorporationor organization are as follows:

 
| Mrs. Fields  Financing Company, Inc.            |   | Delaware |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|----------|
|                                            |   |     |
| Mrs. Fields  Franchising, LLC                   |   | Delaware |
|                                            |   |     |
| Great  American Cookie Company Franchising, LLC |   | Delaware |
|                                            |   |     |
| Pretzelmaker  Franchising, LLC                  |   | Delaware |
|                                            |   |     |
| Pretzel Time  Franchising, LLC                  |   | Delaware |
|                                            |   |     |
| Great  American Manufacturing, LLC              |   | Delaware |
|                                            |   |     |
| TCBY Systems,  LLC                              |   | Delaware |
|                                            |   |     |
| The Mrs.  Fields= Brand, Inc.                   |   | Delaware |
|                                            |   |     |
| Mrs. Fields  Gifts, Inc.                        |   | Utah     |
|                                            |   |     |
| Mrs. Fields  Cookies Australia                  |   | Utah     |
|                                            |   |     |
| TCBY  International, Inc.                       |   | Utah     |
|                                            |   |     |
| TCBY of  Texas, Inc.                            |   | Texas    |

 

Each of these subsidiaries doesbusiness under its respective corporate name.

 

----

*Excludes certain indirectsubsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate, would not constitute asignificant subsidiary as of the end of fiscal year 2005.

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 October 19, 2018

Order 

Clerk

October 19, 2018

158269-70(75)

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

SC: 158269-70

v COA: 332454, 333281

Sanilac CC: 14-035646-NZ

DETROIT EDISON CO., a/k/a DTE 

ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to extend the time 

for filing its answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer 

submitted on October 11, 2018, is accepted for filing.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Andrea Dunn","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/andreacdunn-2-2-2-2-2-2\/","title":"Luis G. Ramirez","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jG9avDek7T\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/luis-g-ramirez\/\">Luis G. Ramirez<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/luis-g-ramirez\/embed\/#?secret=jG9avDek7T\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Luis G. Ramirez” — NASA\" data-secret=\"jG9avDek7T\" 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\/09\/luis-g.-ramirez.jpg?w=512","thumbnail_width":512,"thumbnail_height":640}
9589.

#### Poulos *v.*The State.

Decided April 12, 1918.

Broyles, P. J.

1. There is no merit in that ground of the motion for a new trial which alleges that “the venue was not proved or the offense shown to have been committed within the statute of limitations.”

2. The verdict was amply supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*

*240Accusation, of misdemeanor; from city court of Savannah— Judge Rourke. February 2, 1918.

*Shelby Myriclc,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter 0. Ilartridge, solicitor-general, contra.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 60","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TPH8moLNIW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-60\/\">Expedition 60<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-60\/embed\/#?secret=TPH8moLNIW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 60” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TPH8moLNIW\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp60-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}