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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

[REDACTED], 

Plaintiff,

v.

[REDACTED], et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-02626

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 

MOTION TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s 

inherent power to effectuate its own orders, Plaintiff seeks to extend the Temporary Restraining 

Order granted and entered by the Court on May 5, 2020 (the “TRO”) [27] for a period of 

fourteen (14) days until June 2, 2020. 

On May 5, 2020, this Court entered the TRO against the Defendants identified on 

Schedule A to the Amended Complaint. [27]. As of May 14, 2020, the third parties have not 

completed effectuating the TRO. Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio at ¶ 2. Plaintiff plans to freeze 

financial accounts identified by the third parties. Id. 

Rule 65(b)(2) states that a temporary restraining order entered without notice may be 

extended provided a party can show, prior to expiration of the order, good cause for such an 

extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Plaintiff respectfully submits that there is good cause to 

extend the TRO, since there is a high probability that the Defendants will continue to harm 

Plaintiff without the TRO in place. Specifically, Defendants will likely attempt to move any 

assets from their financial accounts to off-shore bank accounts. As discussed in Plaintiff’s

Memorandum in Support of its Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02626 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/14/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2499
2

and as found by the Court in granting the TRO, this possibility of harm is significant. 

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, Plaintiff submits that extension of the TRO is necessary. 

In light of the above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the TRO be extended for a period of 

fourteen (14) days until June 2, 2020.

Dated this 14th day of May 2020. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Justin R. Gaudio

Amy C. Ziegler

Justin R. Gaudio

RiKaleigh C. Johnson

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

rjohnson@gbc.law

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case: 1:20-cv-02626 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/14/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2500
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-1389EA

_____________ Repoleon Gilbert, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Scott Dunn, Classification * Appeal from the United Sta tes Officer, Delta Regional Unit, * DistrictCourt for the Eastern Arkansas Department of * District of Arkansas. Correction; Grant Harris, * Warden, Delta Regional Unit, * [UNPUBLISHED] Arkansas Department of * Correction; Larry Norris, * Director, Arkansas Department * of Correction, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: April 7, 1997 Filed: April 15, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________
PER CURIAM. Arkans as inmate Repoleon Gilbert appeals from the advers e decisions of the magistrate judge in Gilbert’s 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 lawsuit. Because Gilbert did not provide a transcript of th e eviden ce presented at trial, we cannot review the magistrat e ju dge’s findings. SeeFed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Van Treese v . Blome , 7 F.3d 729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Given th e mag istrate judge’s finding that Gilbert had not been required t o perf ormwork beyond his physical capacity, the magistrate judg e properly rejected Gilbert’s deliberate indifference claim. See-2-

Choate v. Lockhart , 7 F.3d 137 0, 1374 (8th Cir. 1993). Our review of Gilbert’s other arguments reveals that they lack merit. W e affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 15, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00287

- CV

IN RE Abelardo G. GONZALEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On May 6, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Because relator has obtained

the relief requested, we DISMISS his petition for writ of mandamus AS MOOT

.

It is so ORDERED on May 15, 2019

.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of May, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018 CVH 001007 D3, styled Abelardo Gonzalez v. Alberto Gonzalez, et

al. , pe nding in the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo

presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 154 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 154

 Expressing the sense of the House that the Nation's children are its 
 most valuable assets and that their protection should be the Nation's 
                           highest priority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 1997

 Mr. Collins submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House that the Nation's children are its 
 most valuable assets and that their protection should be the Nation's 
                           highest priority.

Whereas the Nation's most valuable and vulnerable asset is its children;
Whereas their protection should be one of our highest priorities;
Whereas over 1,000,000 children are reported missing, and over 100,000 attempted 
        nonfamily abductions take place every year;
Whereas over 750,000 children under the age of 18 disappear for some length of 
        time every year;
Whereas law enforcement officials constantly encounter crimes against children;
Whereas sex offenders are nine times more likely to repeat their crimes than any 
        other class of criminal;
Whereas nearly two-thirds of State prisoners serving time for rape and sexual 
        assault victimized children; and
Whereas while many missing children are returned to their homes, many others are 
        exposed to danger and exploitation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) all Members of Congress should take appropriate action 
        to ensure the safety and protection of children in their 
        jurisdictions;
            (2) State governments should have in effect laws which 
        register offenders convicted of sexual crimes against children 
        and laws which require law enforcement to notify communities of 
        the presence of these offenders;
            (3) States should have in effect laws which severely punish 
        individuals convicted of offenses against children, especially 
        crimes involving abduction, sexual assault, exploitation, and 
        stalking;
            (4) law enforcement agencies should take the necessary 
        steps to safeguard children against the dangers of abduction 
        and exploitation; and
            (5) State and local law enforcement agencies should work in 
        close cooperation with Federal law enforcement to ensure a 
        rapid and efficient response to reports of child abductions, 
        especially in cases where a child's life may be in danger.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 127272(10) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JOHN JACOBS, Justices Plaintiff,

v SC: 127272 AGC: 0236/04 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of th is Court's order of June 28, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, b ecause it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Thomas Gurkowski, Secretary/Treasurer and CFO of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Annual Report on 10KSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: January 21, 2006.



/s/ Thomas Gurkowski

_______________________

Thomas Gurkowski

(Secretary/Treasurer and CFO)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening 

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

From: Daniel Neuberger 

Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 12:30 PM 

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov> 

Subject: NIST CSF 2.0 Concept Paper Feedback 

Hello, 

I am providing feedback 

on https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2023/01/19/CSF 2.0 Concept Paper 01-

18-23.pdf [nist.gov]. My suggestions are: 

1. Please consider incorporating the ideas from the OWASP Cyber Defense matrix 

(https://owasp.org/www-project-cyber-defense-matrix/ 

[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]) including the associated website and book. It 

addresses many shortcomings and inconsistences of CSF 1.1 (the book in particular 

highlights specific issues). Furthermore, it is conceptually simple, but very powerful 

making it easier to use and get traction with others. 

2. I don't think governance should be added as a separate function because it applies 

across all the functions. The Cyber Defense Matrix represents this as "Process" at the 

bottom of the matrix applying equally across all functions. Chapter 5 of the book 

describes how this all fits together in terms of development and implement a cyber 

security roadmap. It's also something we're discussing in more detail within the 

community. 

3. I would also consider how to use the Cyber Defense Matrix concepts for cybersecurity 

measurement and assessment. I think both of these also apply across all functions and 

I've found the matrix to be a useful strategic level framework for both of these aspects. 

The book addresses these as well. 

Myself and I'm sure others in the Cyber Defense Matrix community including the creator are 

willing to engage further on these points. 

Thanks. 
 

- Daniel 

Daniel Neuberger | CTO 

Arctonyx, LLC | Baltimore, MD

 [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
9800.

#### Parks *v.*The State.

Broyles, P. J.

1. The statute defining the offense of burglary (Penal Code of 1910, § 146) states that “all outhouses contiguous to or within the curtilage or protection of the mansion or dwelling-house shall be considered as parts of the same.” Under the ruling in *Bryant*v. *State,*60 *Ga.*358, an outhouse may be considered a part of the dwelling-house if it be within its *protection,*although it may not be contiguous thereto or within its curtilage. In the instant case the corn-crib’ broken into, and from which corn was stolen, and the prosecutor’s dwelling-house were in a “no fence” county, and neither was enclosed by any fence, and a public road ran between them. When the offense was being committed *622the prosecutor and his wife, *at night, from thei/r dwelling-house heard and saw the defendant breaking into the corn-crib.*This clearly shows that the corn-crib was so located as to be within the protection of the dwelling-house, and therefore, under the ruling just stated, it must be considered as a part thereof.

Decided October 8, 1918.

Indictment for burglary; from Dawson superior court—-Judge Jones. May 8, 1918.

*R. H. Baker, B. P. GaiTlard Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert McMillan, solicitor-general,*contra.

2. The conviction of the offense of burglary 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.*
#### Wesly P. Cundiff *v.*Wm. B. Cundiff.

Bills and Notes — Warranty of Horse — Damages—Set-Off.

The facts set up in the answer amounts to a warranty that the stallion was capable of performing services which render horses of that hind valuable. Damages for a breach of this warranty could be lawfully set off against the note sued on, even in the hands of the assignee.

APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

October 29, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Appellee, by his answer, relied for defense to the note and for rescission of contract upon the deceit alleged to have been practiced upon him by the original payee.

*760
      *R. H. Field, for appellmt.*

*A. H. Field, R. J. Meglor, for appellee.*

The facts set up amount to a warranty that the stallion was capable of performing services which renders horses of that kind valuable. Damages from a breach of this warranty could be lawfully set-off against the note sued on, even in the hands of the assignee.

The law and facts seem to have been submitted to the court. His judgment upon the facts is entitled to same consideration as the verdict of a jury.

We cannot say that his finding is against the weight of the evidence. His judgment must therefore be affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Coverage Set for NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-2 Return to Earth","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"39SjUXHiSC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/coverage-set-for-nasas-spacex-crew-2-return-to-earth\/\">Coverage Set for NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-2 Return to Earth<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/coverage-set-for-nasas-spacex-crew-2-return-to-earth\/embed\/#?secret=39SjUXHiSC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Coverage Set for NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-2 Return to Earth” — NASA\" data-secret=\"39SjUXHiSC\" 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\/11\/51332610874_46b98f19e2_k.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### Jas. A. Smith *v.*Kohn & Wile.

Attorney Fee — Pleading—Averment of Petition.

In order to recover an attorney fee, provided for in a note, the petition should have averred the payment of same by the holder of the note.

APPEAL FROM MCLEAN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 7, 1871.

Prentice, *for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Pryor:

When the action is founded on the written obligation of the defendant no verification by affidavit is necessary — Sec. 143, Civil Code. In this case by the obligation itself the defendant agrees to pay the attorneys’ fee, and although it was necessary to aver not only what a reasonable attorney’s fee was, but that appellee had paid it, still the writing being the basis of the action, and the only evidence required of the obligation to pay, no affidavit was necessary. The petition should have averred, in order to authorize a judgment by default, the payment of the attorney’s fee by the appellee and for the failure to make this averment the judgment allowing the attorney’s fee is reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O S
. A P

- 7 6 , 5 5 9 , A P

- 7 6 , 5 6 0 , A P

- 7 6 , 5 6 1 , A P

- 7 6 , 5 6 2 , A P

- 7 6 , 5 6 3 A P

- 7 6 , 5 6 4 & A P

- 7 6 , 5 6 5

E X P A R T E A N A H E R N A N D E Z , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N S F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O S
. 2 0 0 9 0 D 0 2 7 8 5 , 2 0 0 9 0 D 0 3 5 3 2 , 2 0 1 0 0 D 0 3 8 3 8 , 2 0 1 0 0 D 0 3 8 3 9 ,

2 0 1 0 0 D 0 3 8 9 1 , 2 0 0 9 0 D 0 4 2 9 9 & 2 0 0 9 0 D 0 4 4 2 7 I N T H E 1 7 1 S T D I S T R I C T C O U R T F R O M E L P A S O C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m .
O P I N I O N

Pursuant t o t h e p ro v isions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the
cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for a writ of h ab ea s co rp us. Ex
parte Y oun g , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of seven counts
of theft and senten ce d t o 15 months’ imprisonment on eac h count. She did not appea l her
convictions. Applicant contends that she did not rec eive the benef it of the barg ain in her plea ag ree ments.2

We rema nded these applications t o the t rial court for findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw. The
trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions of law and rec ommended that we g rant relief

. Relief

i s gra nted. The judgme nts in cause numbers 2 0 0 9 0 D 0 2 7 8 5 , 2 0 0 9 0 D 0 3 5 3 2 , 2 0 1 0 0 D 0 3 8 3 8 ,
2 0 1 0 0 D 0 3 8 3 9 , 2 0 1 0 0 D 0 3 8 9 1 , 2 0 0 9 0 D 0 4 2 9 9 , a n d 2 0 0 9 0 D 0 4 4 2 7 in the 171st J udicial District

Court of El Paso County are set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of El Paso County

to answer

the cha rg es as se t out in the indictments.

Co p ie s o f th is o p inion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre c ti o n a l

I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: May

25, 2011 Do Not Publish
December
16, 2008




Memorandum


To:
              Mr.
      Nick WinchesterSenior
      Vice PresidentFrom:
              Curtis
      Garner, CFORe:
              Otelco
      Employment Agreement and IRS Section 409A
  Compliance




Dear
Nick:




In order
to comply with recent changes to the final Treasury Regulations issued under
Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, your employment agreement must be amended by
December 31, 2008. By amending the agreement as described below, any severance
payments under the agreement will be exempt from the 409A deferred compensation
rules. In order to avoid the application of these rules, your agreement must be
amended to specifically state that any severance to be paid must be paid no
later than March 15 of the year following your termination. Currently, the
agreement does not specify that the amounts will be paid within a certain time
period. By making this change, your agreement will comply with the rules under
409A that make it exempt from their application. I have attached a copy of your
current agreement for your reference. Failure to amend the agreement by December
31, 2008, to be exempt from 409A, could result in the amounts being subject to a
20% penalty tax.




Please
sign and return to me by December 31, 2008, this letter evidencing your
agreement with the following amendment to your employment
agreement:




Section
5(a)(iii) is amended to read as follows: “The Company shall pay to the Employee
a lump sum in the amount of one-half (1/2) of his Annual Base Salary within six
(6) months following termination but not later than March 14 of the calendar
year following termination; and”


Otelco
      Inc./s/
      Curtis L. GarnerCurtis
      L. Garner, Chief Financial
Officer




I hereby
agree to the above amendment to my employment agreement.


/s/
      Nicholas A. Winchester
              
              December
      31, 2008Nicholas
      A. Winchester
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26421]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Time-Sensitive Obesity 
Policy Review.
    Date: November 17, 2014.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 
594-8898, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcbebdaeb2bdaeb8b19cb9a4a8aebdf2b2b5b8b8b7f2b2b5b4f2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80e2e1f2eee1f2e4edc0e5f8f4f2e1aeeee9e4e4ebaeeee9e8aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: November 3, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-26421 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>