alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Curtis J. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-11111-AA.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 19, 2015.

David L. Selby, II, Bailey *&*Glasser, LLP, Wesley L. Phillips, Phillips Law Group, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Haddonfield, NJ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gregory Russell Hanthorn, Rebecca Brown Crawford, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, Leilus Jackson Young, Jr., Ferguson Frost & Dodson, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Richard J. Rubin, Attorney at Law, Santa FE, NM, for Amicus Curia National Consumer Law Center.

BEFORE: MARTIN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

On January 15, 2015, this Court reversed the district court’s determination that third-party publication is necessary for a consumer to be entitled to actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which requires a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information contained in a consumer’s credit file. We remanded to the district court for further proceedings on Curtis J. Collins’ claim alleging a negligent violation of § 1681i(a). We affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Collins’ claim that Experian In*1271formation Solutions, Inc., willfully violated its duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under § 1681i(a). *Collins v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,*775 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir.2015). Collins requests we rehear the willfulness portion of our opinion.

Collins asserts *Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr,*551 U.S. 47, 70,127 S.Ct. 2201, 2216, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007), provides that if a CRA had “the benefit of guidance from the courts of appeals ... that might have warned it away from the view [of the FCRA] it took,” a jury question exists regarding whether the CRA willfully violated the FCRA. He contends three courts of appeals have warned CRAs that it is unreasonable to merely contact the creditor to verify the consumer’s debt when there is other information provided by the consumer that calls the creditor’s data into question; therefore a jury question is presented. *See Cushman v. Trans Union Corp.,*115 F.3d 220, 226-27 (3d Cir.1997); *Henson v. CSC Credit Servs.,*29 F.3d 280, 286-87 (7th Cir.1994); *Stevenson v. TRW Inc.,*987 F.2d 288, 293-94 (5th Cir.1993). We deny his petition because Collins did not raise the argument contained in his petition for rehearing in his initial brief on appeal.1*See United States v. Levy,*379 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir.2004). Collins premises his entire argument on one sentence he did not cite, as interpreted through three circuit court cases he did not cite. We did not decide the issue presented in Collins’ petition for rehearing, and neither do we decide the issue now.

1

. Nor did he raise it in his reply brief.
#### Keyvan Mobed MEHDIABADI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70281.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 22, 2011.

Harsh Chhabra, Law Solutions, Inc., Chino Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

Edward C. Durant, OIL, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Keyvan Mobed Mehdiabadi, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Singh v. Gonzales,*491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Mehdiabadi’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than two years after the final removal order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(2), and Mehdiaba-di did not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. *See Singh,*491 F.3d at 1096-97.

Mehdiabadi’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24182]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-17-050]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date:  November 9, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

Place:  Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-588 and 731-TA-1392-1393 (Preliminary) 
(Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from China and India). The 
Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its 
determinations on November 13, 2017; views of the Commission are 
currently scheduled to be completed and filed on November 20, 2017.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:

     Issued: November 1, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-24182 Filed 11-2-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2788 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2788

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2021

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the cap on full-
time employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who provide equal 
                   employment opportunity counseling.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``VA Equal Employment Opportunity 
Counselor Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS WHO PROVIDE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 
              COUNSELING.

    (a) In General.--Section 516 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (g); and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
    (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the 
Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of 
Representatives a report regarding the effect of the amendment under 
subsection (a).

            Passed the House of Representatives May 18, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10322 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. TOMMY MERREL JACKSON, also known as TJ Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-148-1
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tommy Merrel Jackson, federal prisoner # 27477-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for grand jury materials, which was filed pursuant to F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 6. The Government argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Jackson’s motion because it is best construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This argument is unavailing because the motion does not challenge Jackson’s conviction or sentence, nor do es it seek to challenge the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 31, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10322

2 disposition of his first § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). Jackson’sargument that thedistrict court erred by denying his request for grand jury materials is likewise unavaili ng. Jackson has not shown a particularized need for these materials. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1993); In re McDermott & Co., Inc., 622 F.2d 166, 172 (5th Cir. 1980). Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. See Miramontez, 995 F.2d at 59. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,

                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Simex Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kjell
Jagelid, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: September 23, 2003                           /s/ Kjell Jagelid
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    By: Kjell Jagelid
                                                    Its: Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simex Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Simex Technologies,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2649

___________________________

Johnathon Watkins

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp.; Beekam; Dusan

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Southern

 ____________

 Submitted: August 10, 2023

Filed: August 24, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Johnathon Watkins appeals the preservice dismissal of his employment-related

action against his former employer, Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. (Smithfield),
and two co-workers. The district court1

 construed Watkins’s complaint as raising

claims under Title VII. The court dismissed without prejudice the complaint as to

Smithfield for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed with

prejudice the complaint as to the co-workers, reasoning that Title VII does not impose

liability on individuals.

We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as

to Smithfield, as the complaint made no allegations concerning exhaustion of

administrative remedies. See Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Ctr., 481 F.3d 1106,

1107 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (noting that a Title VII plaintiff must exhaust

administrative remedies before bringing suit and that Miles had adequately alleged

exhaustion by stating she had filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and by attaching her right-to-sue letter to her complaint); Brooks v.

Midwest Heart Grp., 655 F.3d 796, 801 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he statement in Brooks’s

complaint that she ‘timely filed charges of Employment Discrimination before the US

EEOC’ was sufficient to meet the liberal pleading standard of Rule 8(a).”). We

likewise agree with the district court that dismissal of the individual defendants was

warranted. See Powell v. Yellow Book USA, Inc., 445 F.3d 1074, 1079 (8th Cir.

2006).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

-2-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

RAMEEK HUDSON,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 323 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 5070** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CORNELL BREON RILLEY HARPER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 4:10

- cr - 00008

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : September 15, 2011 Decided: September 30, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Reversed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP AND WINTHROP, Statesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpubli shed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cornell Breon Rilley Harper pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ § 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). Harper moved to withdraw his guilty plea i n light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carachuri

Rosendo v. Holder , __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), but that motion was denied. The district court sentenced Harper to 102 months’ imprisonment. Harper appealed, arguing that his prior conviction wa s not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and, thus, could not serve as a predicate conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Harper also moves to vacate his conviction and remand the case to the district court. In light of Unite d States v. Simmons , ___ F.3d ___,
No. 08

– 4475 , 2011 WL 3607266 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (en banc),

we reverse. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for any person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm. Harper’s prior North Carolina state conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A

- 1340.17(c)

- (d) (2009) ( setting out minimum and maximum sentences applicable under North Carolina ’s structured sentencing scheme). When Harper raised this argument in the district court, it was foreclosed by our decision in United3 States v. Harp , 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005). Subsequently, however, we overruled Harp with our en banc decision in Simmons , in which we sustained a similar argument in favor of the defendant. In view of our holding in Simmons , we reverse Harper’s conviction, deny as moot the motion to vacate, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. The cle rk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith. 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. REVERSED AND REMANDED
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the annual report of AGR Tools, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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.








Dated:  February 16, 2010





By:  /s/ G.M. Rock Rutherford


G.M. Rock Rutherford


President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7354

SHANNON CAUSION-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 1199-AMD) Submitted: December 19, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shannon Causion-El, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Shannon Causion-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Causion-El v. Conroy , No. CA00-1199-AMD (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50459-50460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23596]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): October 31, 
2017.

[[Page 50460]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 25, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 52 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-16, 
CP2018-32.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-23596 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 23




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








The Board of Directors


Cascade Financial Corporation





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No. 33-94456) dated July 10, 1995, on Form S-8, in the registration statements (No. 333-32272, No. 333-97929, and No. 333-141329) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-156301) of Cascade Financial Corporation of our report dated March 10, 2010, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Cascade Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive (loss) income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and in our same report, with respect to Cascade Financial Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which report is included in this annual report on Form 10-K of
Cascade Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009.







Everett, Washington


March 10, 2010
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Consumer Alert – Warning to Yacht Purchasers","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"cF0xbRAx1H\"><a href=\"\/consumer-alert-warning-to-yacht-purchasers\/\">Consumer Alert – Warning to Yacht Purchasers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/consumer-alert-warning-to-yacht-purchasers\/embed\/#?secret=cF0xbRAx1H\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Consumer Alert – Warning to Yacht Purchasers” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"cF0xbRAx1H\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}