alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1134

DAVID STANLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LAZARON VENTURES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, versus GERALD LEE GRAY; PAUL DARRELL SMITH; J. ROBERT STUMP; J. JACK KENNEDY, JR.; CAROLINE STEVENS; COMMUNITY BASED CORRECTIONS; COUNTY OF WISE, VIRGINIA, a public entity; GREGORY KALLEN; BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS, INCORPORATED; ANTHONY E. COLLINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cv-00031-jpj) Submitted: July 25, 2007 Decided: August 16, 2007 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - David Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia; Daniel Robert Bieger, COPELAND & BIEGER, PC, Abingdon, Virginia; George Walerian Chabalewski, James Van Ingold, James Christian Stuchell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Tarek F.M. Saad, HOLLAND & HART, LLP, Denver, Colorado; Michael Edward Anderson, MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP, McLean, Virginia; Mark B. Wiletsky, HOLLAND & HART, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellees. Anthony E. Collins, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: David Kim Stanley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, denying his motions to amend his complaint and to name defendant John Doe, and dismissing his state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stanley v. Gray, No. 2:06-cv-00031-jpj (W.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
88 A.3d 970

#### Dwayne JONES, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 20 EM 2014.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 2, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2014, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
{"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":"Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Examines Available Technology & Platforms","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Rf4DcJ2Kih\"><a href=\"\/next-meeting-of-fmc-data-initiative-examines-available-technology-platforms\/\">Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Examines Available Technology & Platforms<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/next-meeting-of-fmc-data-initiative-examines-available-technology-platforms\/embed\/#?secret=Rf4DcJ2Kih\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Examines Available Technology & Platforms” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Rf4DcJ2Kih\" 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 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Alan Gold, certify that: 1.
I have
  reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.;2.
Based on my
  knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
  statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
  quarterly report;3.
Based on my
  knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
  in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
  financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
  as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
I am
  responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
  procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-15e) for the
  registrant and I have:a)
designed
  such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
  relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
  known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period
  in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
evaluated
  the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as
  of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report
  (the Evaluation Date); andc)
presented in
  this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
  disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
  Evaluation Date;5.
I have
  disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors
  and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
  performing the equivalent function):a)
all
  significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
  which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
  summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
any fraud,
  whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
  a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and6.
I have
  indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes
  in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
  internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation,
  including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
  material weaknesses.  Date: May
  12, 2008
/s/ Alan
  GoldAlan GoldPresident
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7441
CHARLES MASON JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRONALD ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections; DAVID L. GRAHAM, Assistant Warden; SAMUEL L. BATTS, Assistant Warden; CAPTAIN BRUCE; JOHN B. METZGER, III, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; FRED W. GREENE, Warden; SERGEANT WINCKLER; C. TAYLOR, Treatment Supervisor; NURSE HARRIS; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-195) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Mason Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Angelone , No. CA-95-195 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
a104-letteragreementrega






  GDSVF&H\8081730.3  TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS INC.  April 11, 2022  Patrick Dillon  via email    Dear Mr. Dillon:  We are very pleased to inform you that TuSimple Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) has approved  providing you with the opportunity to earn a one-time cash retention bonus, subject to the terms in  conditions set forth in this letter agreement.   1. Retention Bonus   Subject to your continued employment with the Company or a wholly owned subsidiary thereof  through April 11, 2023 (the “Retention Date”), you will earn a retention bonus in an amount equal to  $500,000 (such bonus, the “Retention Bonus”).  While the Retention Bonus will not be earned by you  until the Retention Date, the Company will advance you the Retention Bonus within 30 days of the date  hereof.  The Retention Bonus will be fully taxable when paid, and all regular payroll taxes will be  withheld.  In the event of your resignation for any reason (other than due to death or Disability, as defined  in your Severance and Change in Control Agreement) [or if your employment is terminated by the  Company for Cause, as defined in your Severance and Change in Control Agreement], you will be  responsible for immediately reimbursing the Company for the full amount of the Retention Bonus, net of  any applicable withholding taxes and other deductions required by law, within 5 days following your  termination.  2. Miscellaneous  This letter agreement supersedes and replaces any prior agreements, representations or  understandings (whether written, oral, implied or otherwise) between you and the Company relating to the  subject matter herein.  In addition, this letter agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, and  by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all  of which together will constitute the same instrument.  For the avoidance of doubt, if you do not remain  continuously employed with the Company through the Retention Date, you will not be entitled to retain  any portion of the Retention Bonus pursuant to this letter agreement.     Except for the additional terms contained herein, the terms of your employment shall remain  unchanged.  Assuming you are in agreement with the terms hereof, please sign and return a copy of this  letter agreement to us by April 11, 2022.      Very truly yours,    TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS INC.  By:   /s/ Jim Mullen    Jim Mullen     





 






  2  GDSVF&H\8081730.3        I have read and I agree to the terms set forth in this letter agreement:  /s/ Patrick Dillon       Signature of Patrick Dillon     Dated:  April 11, 2022
{"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":"Revocations and Surrenders – October 16, 2014","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"njGspmsIqm\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-october-16-2014\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – October 16, 2014<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-october-16-2014\/embed\/#?secret=njGspmsIqm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – October 16, 2014” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"njGspmsIqm\" 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"}
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3096 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3096

 To allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service 
                    weapons, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2021

Mrs. Demings (for herself and Mr. Bacon) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service 
                    weapons, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Federal Law Enforcement Officer 
Service Weapon Purchase Act''.

SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF RETIRED HANDGUNS BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              OFFICERS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Administrator of General Services shall establish a 
program under which a Federal law enforcement officer may purchase a 
retired handgun from the Federal agency that issued the handgun to such 
officer.
    (b) Limitations.--A Federal law enforcement officer may purchase a 
retired handgun under subsection (a) if--
            (1) the purchase is made during the 6-month period 
        beginning on the date the handgun was so retired;
            (2) with respect to such purchase, the officer has passed a 
        background check within 30 days of purchase under the national 
        instant criminal background check system established under the 
        Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act; and
            (3) with respect to such purchase, the officer is in good 
        standing with the Federal agency that employs such officer.
    (c) Cost.--A handgun purchased under this section shall be sold at 
the fair market value for such handgun taking into account the age and 
condition of the handgun.
    (d) Sense of Congress on Use of Funds.--It is the sense of Congress 
that any amounts received by the Government from the sale of a handgun 
under this section should be transferred and used to fund evidence-
based gun violence prevention or gun safety education and training 
programs.
    (e) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 115(c)(1) of title 18, 
        United States Code;
            (2) the term ``handgun'' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and
            (3) the term ``retired handgun'' means any handgun that has 
        been declared surplus by the applicable agency.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**
   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of New Dragon Asia Corp. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:
   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 25, 2004 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
      ****Date: November 9, 2004
By:
/s/ Heng Jing LUHeng Jing LUChief Executive Officer


|                       |                                  |              
|---------------------- | -------------------------------- | -------------
|                       | ****                            
|                       |                                  |              
|Date: November 9, 2004 | By:                              | /s/ Peter Mak
|                       |                                 
|                       | Peter MakChief Financial Officer





-19-

---
Exhibit 33.1

          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

The Bank of New York, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A. and The Bank
of New York (Delaware) (collectively, the "Company") provides this
platform-level assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified
in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) asset-backed
securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions
issued prior to January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee,
securities administration, or paying agent services, other than residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities.
The platform includes like-kind transactions for which the Company provided
trustee, securities administrator, or paying agent services as a result of the
Company's acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A.'s corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and
trust transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1) (ii), (iii),
(iv), (2) (iii), (vi), (4) (vi), (vii), (viii), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii) and
(xiv).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o     The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the
      Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o     The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria.

o     As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.

        The Bank of New York                       The Bank of New York
        The Bank of New York Trust                 The Bank of New York Trust
        Company, N.A.                              Company, NA
        The Bank of New York (Delaware)


        /s/ Robert L. Griffin                       /s/ Patrick S. Tadie
        ------------------------------              --------------------
            Robert L. Griffin                           Patrick S. Tadie
            Authorized Signer                           Authorized Signer

March 1, 2007
{"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":"Non\u2013Attorney Admission to Practice","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hmOJidMewv\"><a href=\"\/non-attorney-admission-to-practice\/\">Non\u2013Attorney Admission to Practice<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/non-attorney-admission-to-practice\/embed\/#?secret=hmOJidMewv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Non\u2013Attorney Admission to Practice” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"hmOJidMewv\" 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"}