alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2





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 InterTrust Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Greg S. Wood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/    GREG S. WOOD





Greg S. Wood


Chief Financial Officer


August
14, 2002
#### Oliver HILSENRATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-15092.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Oliver Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.

Joann M. Swanson, Esquire, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Oliver Hilsenrath appeals pro se the district court’s Order dismissing his action to *303enjoin the United States from returning to Switzerland proof of service of process of a Swiss order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo, *In re Arnold & Baker Farms (Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States),*85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the United States Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs already had served the Swiss order on Hilsenrath in compliance with the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and there was no effective action for the district court to take. *See Tate v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada,*606 F.3d 631, 634 (9th Cir.2010) (claim is moot when there is no present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3385-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Florida (FEMA-3385-EM), dated September 5, 2017, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this emergency is closed effective October 18, 2017.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-24350 Filed 11-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Antonio GONZALEZ-ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73090.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 2010.

Filed Nov. 8, 2010.

Genevieve B. Kovacs, Law Office of Genevieve B. Kovacs, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Lindsay L. Chichester, Esquire, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Aimee J. Frederick-son, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner, Antonio Gonzalez-Alvarez, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order pretermitting his application for Adjustment of Status pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 245(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Gonzalez-Alvarez argues that the BIA erred in concluding his drug conviction fails to qualify for treatment under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA), 18 U.S.C. § 3607 (2006).

Gonzalez-Alvarez’s 2001 conviction does not qualify for expungement under the FFOA because Gonzalez-Alvarez violated the terms of his initial 1995 probation. If a person “violates a condition of his probation, the court shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 3565.” 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a) (2006). *See Estrada v. Holder,*560 F.3d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir.2009) (“FFOA relief is unavailable when an offender has violated a condition of probation.”); *Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS,*36 F.3d 801, 811-12 (9th Cir.1994) (explaining that an alien’s offense must fall within the scope of the FFOA for the alien to avoid immigration consequences). *See also Lujan-Armendariz v. INS,*222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent requires that FFOA benefits “be extended to aliens whose offenses are expunged under state rehabilitative laws, provided that they would have been eligible for relief under the Act had their offenses been prosecuted as federal crimes”).

The fact that Gonzalez-Alvarez later successfully completed a rehabilitative program and had the conviction dismissed *198under state law does not cure the original violation. Because the 1995 probation violation disposes of this case, we do not reach the remaining issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"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":"Applicants July 24, 2020","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MqH1dskflt\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-24-2020\/\">Applicants July 24, 2020<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-24-2020\/embed\/#?secret=MqH1dskflt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants July 24, 2020” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"MqH1dskflt\" 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"}
BIG CAT MINING CORPORATION
                              A Nevada Corporation

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Big Cat Mining  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended January 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  we, Michael  Halvorson,
President,  Chief Executive  Officer,  and Phil Mudge,  Chief Financial Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 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.




Dated March 28, 2003                     /s/ Michael Halvorson
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Michael Halvorson,
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer


                                         /s/ Phil Mudge
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Phil Mudge,
                                         Chief Financial Officer
Opinion issued August 3, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00341-CV

———————————

IN RE JOSEPH F. RADLER III, THE DICK LAW FIRM, PLLC, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators Joseph F. Radler III, and the Dick Law Firm, PLLC1filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s February 7, 2022 order imposing 

sanctions against relator Joseph Radler for $5,125.63 in attorney’s fees, and 

ordering certain payments due before trial. On August 31, 2022, real parties filed a 

letter attaching a take-nothing judgment entered by the trial court on August 22, 

1 The underlying case is Robert Rojas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 

Company, cause number 1143116, pending in the County Civil Court at Law No.

3 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable LaShawn Williams presiding.
2

2022. On January 10, 2023, real parties in interest filed a motion to dismiss this 

petition for writ of mandamus as moot because the trial court signed a final 

judgment on August 22, 2022. Relators filed a response to the motion to dismiss 

opposing dismissal because they would like this Court’s “thoughtfully considered 

ruling in this mandamus for use in the prosecution of their appeal.”

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show two requirements: 

(1) that the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal. 

See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). An 

order of sanctions, including an award of attorney’s fees, are subject to review on 

appeal from a final judgment. See Susman Godfrey, L.L.P. v. Marshall, 832 

S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ). Although no final judgment 

had been entered at the time relators filed this petition, there is a final, appealable 

judgment now and relators may seek review of the sanctions order in the appeal 

from the final judgment. Because relators have an adequate remedy by appeal, 

they are unable to show entitlement to mandamus relief.

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. Any pending motions are 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
{"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":"Applicants – August 2, 2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3iTsqYNQfG\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-august-2-2019\/\">Applicants – August 2, 2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-august-2-2019\/embed\/#?secret=3iTsqYNQfG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – August 2, 2019” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"3iTsqYNQfG\" 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"}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6426

CLARENCE SCOTT MILLER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MR. WILLIE EAGLETON,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:15-cv-03726-TMC)

Submitted: September 29, 2017 Decided: October 17, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Scott Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Scott Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition.*

 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

 * Construing Miller’s informal and supplemental briefs liberally, see Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), we conclude that Miller only challenged the 

district court’s denial of his motions for discovery and an extension of time.
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO THE UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                 3,515,660
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 2,728,649
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       1,600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                         949,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            5,994,640
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                75,289,218
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                  74,363,344
<LOANS>                              137,544,142
<ALLOWANCE>                            1,128,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       236,047,189
<DEPOSITS>                           175,289,582
<SHORT-TERM>                          35,300,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                    2,068,228
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  21,081
<OTHER-SE>                            23,368,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       236,047,189
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        2,732,753
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      1,304,666
<INTEREST-OTHER>                          76,323
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       4,113,742
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     1,779,779
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     2,361,551
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  1,752,191
<LOAN-LOSSES>                             25,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                       251,541
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        1,261,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          746,637
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               746,637
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             466,270
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                              7.29
<LOANS-NON>                              415,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       1,135,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             32,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      1,128,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                   1,128,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0


</TABLE>
{"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":"Commission Meeting Scheduled for September 26, 2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"N8KyrIz2FK\"><a href=\"\/meeting-9-26-2019\/\">Commission Meeting Scheduled for September 26, 2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/meeting-9-26-2019\/embed\/#?secret=N8KyrIz2FK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Meeting Scheduled for September 26, 2019” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"N8KyrIz2FK\" 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"}