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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2796 

To amend section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to update 

the family attribution rule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2021 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself and Mr. ARRINGTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 to update the family attribution rule. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Family Attribution 

5 Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFORM OF FAMILY ATTRIBUTION RULE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 414 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (b)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2796 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘For purposes of’’ and in2 serting the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of’’, and 

4 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

5 paragraphs: 

6 ‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES FOR APPLYING FAMILY

7 ATTRIBUTION.—For purposes of applying the attri8 bution rules under section 1563 with respect to 

9 paragraph (1), the following rules apply: 

10 ‘‘(A) Community property laws shall be 

11 disregarded for purposes of determining owner12 ship. 

13 ‘‘(B) Any ownership that is not attributed 

14 to a spouse by reason of section 1563(e)(5) 

15 shall also not be attributed to the minor chil16 dren of the owner and the attribution rule in 

17 paragraph (6)(A) shall not apply to such owner18 ship. 

19 ‘‘(3) PLAN SHALL NOT FAIL TO BE TREATED AS

20 SATISFYING THIS SECTION.—If application of para21 graph (2) causes two or more entities to be a con22 trolled group, or an affiliated service group, or to no 

23 longer be in a controlled group or an affiliated serv24 ice group, such change shall be treated as a trans25 action to which section 410(b)(6)(C) applies.’’, and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2796 IH

1 (2) in subsection (m)(6)(B), by striking ‘‘apply’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘apply, except that community prop3 erty laws shall be disregarded for purposes of deter4 mining ownership’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to plan years beginning on or after 

7 the date of the enactment of this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.29
                              STEPHEN J. SCHOEPFER


January 31, 2004


JAG Media Holdings, Inc.
6965 S.W. 18th Street, Suite B13
Boca Raton, FL  33433


Re:      Promissory Note dated April 1, 2002 in the principal amount of $200,000
         between JAG Media Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a JagNotes.com Inc.), as
         borrower, and Stephen J. Schoepfer, as lender, with a maturity date of
         January 31, 2004 ("Promissory Note")

Gentlemen:

This will serve to confirm that the "Maturity Date" of the Promissory Note is
hereby extended from January 31, 2004 to the earlier of (i) April 30, 2004 or
(ii) the effective date of a "Change in Control" as that term is defined in the
Company's Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended.

Except for the foregoing changes, the Promissory Note remains unchanged and in
full force and effect.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer
------------------------
Stephen J. Schoepfer
SCPW-22-0000375

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

D ENNIS VELASCO, Petitioner,

vs.

T HE HONORABLE THOMAS A.K. HAIA, Judge of the District Court of the First Circuit,

State of Hawai # i, Respondent Judge.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1DRC-22-0001832)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Dennis Velasco’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on June 6, 2022, and the record, petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. Nor has petitioner shown that Judge Haia exceeded his jurisdiction, committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act. Petitioner may seek dismissal or other relief in the first district court, see District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 12, and may raise Judge Haia’s order denying petitioner’s request for a jury trial as an issue on appeal, see Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-22-0000375 20-JUN-2022 09:13 AM Dkt. 4 ODDPHawai # i Revised Statutes § 641-1(a). The issuance of a writ of

mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower court, nor is it meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure. An extraordinary writ is thus not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (explaining that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; such a writ is meant to restrain a judge who has exceeded the judge’s jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which the judge has a legal duty to act). Accordingly,

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. It is further ordered that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

It is finally ordered that the clerk of the appellate court shall transfer the petition for writ of mandamus to the first district court to be filed as a motion under DCRCP Rule 12 in Case No. 1DRC-22-0001832.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 20, 2022. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 26, 2014

s0923

Order 

Clerk

September 26, 2014

150030

SC: 150030

In re ASC and EBW, Minors. COA: 320521

Lapeer CC Family Division:

13-003317-RL; 13-003318-RL

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 11, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00856

- CV

IN RE Ropal ANDERSON

, Gerald Busch and Hortencia Morales

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On December 10, 2014, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency

motion for temporary relief. This court is of the opinion that a serious question concerning the

mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The

respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition for writ of

mandamus in this court no later than December 29, 2014. Any such response must conform

to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator s’ request for temporary relief is GRANTED IN PART. The trial court’s

November 18, 2014 order authorizing the depositions of relators is temporarily stayed pending

final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court.

It is so ORDERE D on December 11 th , 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CI, styled In re Matthew Hileman , pending in the 288th Judicial

District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
Exhibit 32.1

DIGIMARC CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Digimarc Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bruce Davis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:
November 14, 2003

|By: |  | /s/BRUCE DAVISBruce Davis Chief Executive Officer | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------- | 
|    |  |                                                   | 

---

QuickLinks
{"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":"FMC Publishes Final Rule on Detention and Demurrage Billing Practices","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5WRqv3O5q5\"><a href=\"\/fmc-publishes-final-rule-on-detention-and-demurrage-billing-practices\/\">FMC Publishes Final Rule on Detention and Demurrage Billing Practices<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/fmc-publishes-final-rule-on-detention-and-demurrage-billing-practices\/embed\/#?secret=5WRqv3O5q5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC Publishes Final Rule on Detention and Demurrage Billing Practices” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"5WRqv3O5q5\" 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"}
Exhibit 23.1





Consent Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the use in Registration Statement on Form S-3 (file no. 333-172623) and related Prospectus, Registration Statement on Form S-8 (file No. 333-165050) and Registration Statement on Form S-8 (file No. 333-171340) of OCZ Technology Group, Inc. of our report dated May 13, 2011 on the consolidated financial statements appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of OCZ Technology Group, Inc. for the year ended February 28, 2011. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in the prospectus.





Crowe Horwath LLP





Sherman Oaks, California


May 13, 2011
Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 16, 2022

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00551-CV

KENYA BAGLEY, Appellant

V.

PA MANUFACTURERS INS. CO., Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-09785

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Carlyle, and Justice Garcia

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to timely file a 

brief, we directed appellant by postcard dated November 8, 2022 to file the brief 

within ten days and cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To 

date, appellant has not filed a brief or otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal. 
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See id.; 42.3(b), (c).

220551f.p05

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

KENYA BAGLEY, Appellant

No. 05-22-00551-CV V.

PA MANUFACTURERS INS. CO., 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-09785.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Chief Justice Burns and Justice 

Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 16th day of December, 2022.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marisol LEIJA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40400

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 21, 2008.

*448James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Victoria K. Guerra, McAllen, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Marisol Leija appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute marijuana. She argues that (1) the district court erroneously assessed a two-point adjustment for reckless endangerment during flight pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2; (2) this circuit’s rulings since *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines scheme; and (3) her sentence is unreasonable as a result of an improper balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

According to the presentence report, Leija engaged the police on a high-*449speed pursuit through a residential area, resulting in the roll-over of the vehicle. Insofar as she raises a “duress defense,” contending that her decision to flee was reasonable, there is no suggestion that she was under an imminent threat of harm at the time of her flight. Under these circumstances, Leija’s flight from the police was not the type of conduct in which a reasonable person would engage, and the district court’s finding that the enhancement was warranted was not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Jimenez,*323 F.3d 320, 322-24 (5th Cir.2003).

Furthermore, Leija has not shown that our precedent has effectively reinstated a mandatory guidelines regime, thereby rendering her sentence unreasonable as a matter of law. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S. —,---, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594-602, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *Kimbrough v. United States,*— U.S. —,---, 128 S.Ct. 558, 569-76, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). Leija also has not shown that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range was unreasonable. *See Gall,*128 S.Ct. at 597; *Rita v. United States,*— U.S. —,-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
#### Dyke Edward NELSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Teresa A. SCHWARTZ, Warden, substituted for Ana M. Ramirez Palmer, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 06-55852.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 8, 2008.

Filed April 30, 2008.

See also 14 Fed.Appx. 791.

Kenneth M. Miller, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Kyle Brodie, Sarah Jean Farhat, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, KLEINFELD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The federal district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner Dyke Nelson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims without an evidentiary hearing or an opportunity to seek discovery. *See Davis v. Woodford,*384 F.3d 628, 638 (9th Cir.2004) (evidentiary hearing); *Anderson v. Calderon,*232 F.3d 1053, 1099 (9th Cir.2000)(discovery). Unlike *Schell v. Witek,*218 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir.2000), where we remanded for an evidentiary hearing where no court had ever considered the substance of the petitioner’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel *(Marsden*motion), *People v. Mars-den,*2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44 (1970), here the California trial court did consider Nelson’s *Marsden*motion.

Nelson failed to produce in the district court the transcript of the first of his two hearings regarding substitute counsel in the State Superior Court. Though the court had sealed the transcript so that the prosecutor would not have access to whatever the disagreement might be between Nelson and his lawyer, no reason is shown *593why Nelson could not obtain the transcript or other account by motion in the Superior Court or otherwise show what transpired. The transcript of the second *Marsden*hearing shows that the Superior Court gave careful consideration to Nelson’s demand for substitute counsel and did not make an unreasonable determination of the facts.

The Superior Court judge relied on his own personal observation of the relationship between Nelson and his attorney, and his attorney’s conduct in court through the trial. Nelson provided to the district court no evidence of anything that happened outside the observation of the Superior Court judge. Nelson asserts that he has repeatedly sought the transcript from his first *Marsden*hearing, but he does not say what he did to seek it, or what it would show that would establish a basis for relief.

DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2970 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2970

To amend title 49, United States Code, to remove the lifetime exemption 
   from the prohibition on procurement of rolling stock from certain 
        vehicle manufacturers for parties to executed contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2021

Mr. Crawford (for himself, Mr. Gimenez, Mr. Mast, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Perry, 
 and Mr. Rouzer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, to remove the lifetime exemption 
   from the prohibition on procurement of rolling stock from certain 
        vehicle manufacturers for parties to executed contracts.

    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 ``Rolling Stock Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF LIFETIME EXEMPTION FROM PROHIBITION ON PROCUREMENT 
              OF ROLLING STOCK FOR PARTIES TO EXECUTED CONTRACTS.

    Section 5323(u)(5) of title 49, United State Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``Except as provided in 
        subparagraph (C) and for a contract or subcontract that is not 
        described in subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``Except as 
        provided in subparagraph (B)'';
            (2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``Subparagraph (B)'' 
        and inserting ``Subparagraph (A)'';
            (3) by striking subparagraph (A); and
            (4) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
        subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
{"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":"Commissioner Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. Joins the Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nNzvBaWKsY\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-richard-a-lidinsky-jr-joins-the-commission\/\">Commissioner Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. Joins the Commission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-richard-a-lidinsky-jr-joins-the-commission\/embed\/#?secret=nNzvBaWKsY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. Joins the Commission” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"nNzvBaWKsY\" 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"}