alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Fire Retardant Corp., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March
31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Raoul L. Carroll, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     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.



                              By  /s/  Raoul L. Carroll
                              -------------------------

                              Raoul L. Carroll
                              Chief Executive Officer of
                              American Fire Retardant Corp.
                              May 15, 2003
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1613

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v.. * District of Arkansas.

*

Tiffany Manning, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 27, 2005

Filed: December 30, 2005 

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The government appeals the sentence imposed on Tiffany Manning after

Manning pleaded guilty to interstate transportation of stolen firearms. We vacate the

sentence and remand for resentencing. 

In calculating Manning’s advisory sentencing range under the federal

Sentencing Guidelines, the district court interpreted United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738 (2005), as prohibiting the imposition of any sentencing enhancements not

based on facts admitted by Manning or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have previously specifically rejected such an interpretation. See United States v.
-2-

Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003

(8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). Manning’s advisory Guidelines

range would have been significantly higher had the district court imposed the

enhancements recommended by the presentence report, and nothing in the record

suggests that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly

applied the Guidelines and Booker. Accordingly, the error was not harmless, and

remand is appropriate. See United States v. Garcia-Juarez, 421 F.3d 655, 657-59 (8th

Cir. 2005) (although Guidelines are now advisory, sentence imposed as result of

incorrect application of Guidelines requires remand for resentencing unless error was

harmless; error in failing to impose enhancement when calculating Guidelines range

was not harmless because imposition of enhancement “would have significantly

increased” defendant’s Guidelines range); United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080,

1082 (8th Cir. 2005) (post-Booker, if district court incorrectly applied Guidelines,

this court will remand unless error was harmless, such as when district court would

have imposed same sentence absent error).

______________________________
9289.

#### Dunson & Brothers Company *v.*Truitt Company.

Decided April 11, 1918.

Luke, J.

The decision of this court in *Truitt Co.*v. *Dunson & Brothers Co.,*20 *Ga. App.*535 (93 S. E. 149), settled and fixed the respective rights of the parties to the fund over which the litigation arose. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the amended intervention and in rendering judgment in favor of Truitt Company in accord with that decision:

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenhins, J., concur,*

*198Money rule; from city court of LaGrange—Judge Harwell. September 20, 19Í7.

*M. TJ. Mooty,*for plaintiff in error. *E. T. Moon,*contra.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00246-CR

__________________

JACOB EDWARD PRESLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-08-11854-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 26, 2022, we notified the parties that this appeal would be 

dismissed for want of prosecution unless arrangements were made for filing the 

record or the appellant explained why he needed additional time for filing the record. 

The appellant did not file a response. It appears that the appellant is not entitled to 

proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.2. There being no 

satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the record, the appeal is dismissed for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
2

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 29, 2022

Opinion Delivered November 30, 2022

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

DERVAIL D. PICKENS, individually, and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALMART INC. D/B/A WALMART 

PHARMACY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-02933

Honorable Judge John Robert Blakey

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, DERVAIL D. PICKENS, and Defendant, WALMART INC., by and through their 

undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) hereby stipulate to a dismissal 

with prejudice of Plaintiff’s individual claims against WALMART INC. with each party to bear its 

own attorney’s fees and costs.

Dated: May 6, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

DERVAIL D. PICKENS

/s/ Mohammed O. Badwan

Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.

2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200

Lombard, IL 60148

Phone: (630) 575-8180

mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

WALMART INC. 

/s/ Tia C. Ghattas

Tia C. Ghattas

COZEN O’CONNOR

123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: (312) 382-3148

Email: tghattas@cozen.com

Counsel for Defendant 

Case: 1:20-cv-02933 Document #: 40 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:155
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

4817-4831-8840.1

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD

& SMITH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Kevin C. Nicholas, State Bar No. 015940 

Kevin.Nicholas@lewisbrisbois.com

Michael B. Smith, State Bar No. 014052 

Michael.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com

Bruce C. Smith, State Bar No. 011721 

Bruce.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761 

Telephone: 602.385.1040 

Facsimile: 602.385.1051 

Attorneys for Defendants Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc. 

Physicians Network Association, Inc., 

Arshad Tariq, Tiffany Thompson and Toan Lai 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Keith and Tammy Early, a married couple, 

individually and as to Keith Early as 

Personal Representative and on behalf of 

the estate of their deceased son Neil 

Raymond Early, Lauren Maggi on behalf 

of and as Conservator of MME, a minor 

child, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

The State of Arizona, a governmental 

entity; et al.,

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-00031-SPL 

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 

PLAINTIFF LAUREN MAGGI 

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to Rules 26 and 30, Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the deposition will be taken upon oral examination of the person whose 

name and address is stated below, at the time and place stated below, before an officer 

authorized by law to administer oaths. 

PERSON TO BE EXAMINED: Lauren Maggi 

DATE AND TIME OF DEPOSITION: Thursday, October 25, 2018 

1:00 P.M. 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-SPL-DMF Document 228 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4817-4831-8840.1 2 

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD

& SMITH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PLACE OF DEPOSITION: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 

2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of October, 2018. 

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 

 By Michael B. Smith 

Kevin C. Nicholas 

Michael B. Smith 

Attorneys for Defendants Correctional 

Healthcare Companies, Inc., Physicians 

Network Association, Inc., Tariq, Thompson 

and Lai 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of October, 2018, I electronically transmitted 

the foregoing Notice of Deposition to the Clerk’s office using the Court’s CM/ECF 

System and thereby served all counsel of record in this matter. 

/s/ Kathleen Biondolillo 

32951-24 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-SPL-DMF Document 228 Filed 10/17/18 Page 2 of 2
{"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":"Stephen A. Koerner","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UWZxfTcvDL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/stephen-a-koerner\/\">Stephen A. Koerner<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/stephen-a-koerner\/embed\/#?secret=UWZxfTcvDL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Stephen A. Koerner” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UWZxfTcvDL\" 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\/07\/steve_koerner_7.12.21.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Physical Spa & Fitness Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Darrie Lam, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

/s/ Darrie Lam
-------------------------
Darrie Lam
Chief Financial Officer

May 19, 2006
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Big Spherules near Victoria","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zFSTq1tB1N\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/big-spherules-near-victoria\/\">Big Spherules near Victoria<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/big-spherules-near-victoria\/embed\/#?secret=zFSTq1tB1N\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Big Spherules near Victoria” — NASA\" data-secret=\"zFSTq1tB1N\" 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\/167884main_image_feature_746_ys_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
*Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-20175 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus GARY ARTHUR, Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-94-120-4)

_______________________________________________________ November 17, 1995 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gary Arthur appealed his criminal conviction to this court. Subsequent to his appeal, he died. “When a defendant dies pending direct appeal of his criminal conviction, not only the appeal but also all proceedings had in the prosecution from its inception are abated.” United States v. Cammarata , 721 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1983).2

We have been provided Arthur’s death certificate. Arthur’s attorney has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based upon Cammarata . The government agrees. Therefore, the motion is granted, the appeal is dismissed as moot, and the case is remanded with directions to the District Court to vacate the judgment and dismiss the superseding indictment in United States v. Arthur , Docket No. CR-H-94-120-4, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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 28, 2015

p1019

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2015

148677

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148677

COA: 309320

Menominee CC: 11-003373-FH

PAUL ANDREW HERRON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of June 11, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 

2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. 

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part 

the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Menominee 

Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different 

sentence under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge. On remand, the trial 

court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court 

determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional 

constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial 

court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. In all other 

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### ROSINA LEOGRANDE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SOCIETA M. S. FRATELLANZA ITALIANA, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 1, 1945

Decided May 18, 1945.

*52Before Justices Case, Bodine and Pekskie.

Eor the appellant, *Louis Saniorf.*

Eor the respondent, *James J. Rose, Isadore Rabinowiiz.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodesie, J.

The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the beneficiary named in a contract issued by the appellant, a mutual aid society organized under the laws of this state-. Decedent had been a member of the society for about fifteen years and at the time of his death by suicide was a member in good standing. The beneficiary’s rights are derived from the by-laws and a designation by her husband, a member of the society.

Article 23 provides that every member after one year from his initiation, if in good standing (article 24), shall be entitled to certain benefits.

Article 25 provides: “Members affected by venereal diseases, or *wounds*received in brawls provoked h}' drunkenness or attempted suicide, have no right to any benefit.”

Articles 26 and 27 relate to sick benefits to members.

Article 28, so far as pertinent, provides as follows: “At the death of a member provided the society records show that he has been a member at least for six months the family or who is designated by him, is entitled to four hundred dollars ($400.00).”

It was contended before us that the beneficiary was not entitled to recover because of her husband’s death by suicide. The contract could have been so drafted but it was not. The members are deprived of sick benefits when illness occurs because of an attempted suicide, but the contract is silent as to a deprivation of benefits to the designated beneficiary because of the suicide of the member. The beneficiary’s rights are independent and not derivative. Suicide was not set up in the contract as a bar to her right. *Campbell*v. *Supreme Conclave,*66 *N. J. L.*274; *Sautter*v. *Imperial Order of Heptasophs,*76 *Id.*763. See, also, *Angersbach*v. *South River Police, &c., Commission,*122 *Id.*1.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
9119.

#### Chance, administrator, *v.*Simpkins.

Decided April 9, 1918.

Money rule; from Richmond superior court—Judge H. C. Hammond. May 30,1917.

*Paul T. Chance, William H. Fleming,*for plaintiff in error.

*George T. Jaclcson,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

Where funds have been paid into court under an order requiring their deposit with its clerk to await their final distribution, the funds while so held are in custodia legis, and therefore not subject to the process of garnishment. 20 Cyc. 1022 (1,2). The fact that the parties interested may have consented to the order of court will not alter the rule; nor will the fact that prior to the service of the process of garnishment the right to the funds had been fixed and determined by another judgment providing for their distribution. *Cowart*v. *Caldwell Co., 134 Ga. 544, 548*(68 S. E. 500, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 720); *Field*v. *Jones,*11 *Ga.*413. In such a case the status of the clerk, as a bare custodian for the court, is analogous to that of a receiver, who is not subject to the process of garnishment (Civil Code of 1910, § 5485), rather than to the status of a sheriff, who, as a general officer accountable to all, has been held to be subject to the process. *Bird*v. *Harris,*63 *Ga.*434, 435.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
{"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":"NASA Improves GIANT Optical Navigation Technology for Future Missions","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"occQliaYmD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/goddard-tech\/giant-optical-navigation\/\">NASA Improves GIANT Optical Navigation Technology for Future Missions<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/goddard-tech\/giant-optical-navigation\/embed\/#?secret=occQliaYmD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Improves GIANT Optical Navigation Technology for Future Missions” — NASA\" data-secret=\"occQliaYmD\" 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\/10\/bennu_particle_jets_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":437}