alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos LOPEZ-ROSAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10344

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Carlos Lopez-Rosas, Ayer, MA, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Lopez-Rosas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Lopez-Rosas has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS AND INCOME STATEMETNS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                             212
<SECURITIES>
<RECEIVABLES>
<ALLOWANCES>
<INVENTORY>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   212
<PP&E>
<DEPRECIATION>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              952
<BONDS>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>
<PREFERRED>                                  5,000,000
<COMMON>                                    50,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       (739)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     (739)
<SALES>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>
<CGS>
<TOTAL-COSTS>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   677
<LOSS-PROVISION>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (677)
<INCOME-TAX>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (677)
<DISCONTINUED>
<EXTRAORDINARY>
<CHANGES>
<NET-INCOME>                                     (677)
<EPS-BASIC>
<EPS-DILUTED>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT AND SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John M. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kana Software, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                         |  |                                         
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|Dated: November 13, 2006 |  | /s/ John M. Thompson                    
|                         |  | John M. Thompson Chief Financial Officer
#### Filiberto Perez DEL MURO; Gabriela Gallegos Pantoja, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72600.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Filiberto Perez Del Muro, Anaheim, CA, pro se.

Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Filiberto Perez Del Muro and Gabriela Gallegos Pantoja, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the *244Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed nearly two years after the BIA’s final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and petitioners do not contend they are entitled to equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

We decline to review petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s February 6, 2006, order because the Court has already issued a memorandum disposition in petitioners’ previous petition for review of that decision. *See Perez Del Muro v. Mukasey,*256 Fed.Appx. 98 (9th Cir.2007).

To the extent it is raised, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Tajuddin ISMAIL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73308.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Hardeep Singh Rai, Esquire, Phuong N. Le, Esquire, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Corey Leigh Farrell, OIL, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tajuddin Ismail, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused Ismail’s untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Ismail’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Ismail admitted his testimony at his asylum interview was inconsistent with his hearing testimony concerning his participation in political rallies and the circumstances surrounding the 1998 rally and his second arrest, *see Li,*378 F.3d at 962, and the agency reasonably rejected Ismail’s explanation for the inconsistencies, *see Rivera v. Mukasey,*508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). We reject Ismail’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by admitting the asylum officer’s notes in the officer’s absence. *See Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995). In the absence of credible testimony, Ismail failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Ismail’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and Ismail points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Pakistan, his CAT claim also fails. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-028
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order 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 report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
#### Bonds *vs.*Pearce *et al.*

While this court has held that a *certiorari*is such a suit as might be renewed within six months after dismissal, yet the statute imperatively requires the plaintiff in *certiorari*to cause written, notice to be'given to the opposite party in interest, his agent or attorney, of the sanction of the writ, and also the time and place of the hearing, at least ten days before the sitting of the court to which the same is returnable, and in default of such notice, unless prevented by unavoidable cause, that the *certiorari*shall be dismissed. When, therefore, a *certiorari*has been dismissed for this cause, and it is sought to renew it by a second *certiorari*within six months thereafter, it also will be dismissed. Gobb’s Dig., 528; Code, §§4057, 4059, 4058, 217; Acts, 1858, p. 74.

*(a.)*This case differs from those in 32 *Ga.,*435, and 22 *Id.,*359.

Judgment affirmed.

March 10, 1885

Hall, Justice.
Exhibit 10.8


 


EXHIBIT B-7


 


ALLONGE


 


This Allonge is made to that Senior Secured Incremental
Note, certificate B-6, dated November 26, 2021 (the “Note”), in the original principal sum of four hundred ninety-one thousand
nine hundred and thirty-nine dollars and thirteen cents ($491,939.13) issued by Pareteum Corporation, a Delaware corporation to Channel
Ventures Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to that certain Joinder Agreement dated November 26, 2021 and subject
to the terms of that Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of June 8, 2020, as amended from time to time.


 


Pay to the order of Circles MVNE Pte. Ltd., WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR RECOURSE WHATSOEVER, except as expressly set forth in the Note Sale Contract dated as of April 25, 2022,
made and entered into by and between the undersigned, as seller, and Circles MVNE Pte. Ltd., as purchaser and acknowledged and agreed
to by Pareteum Corporation, as issuer.


 


Dated as of April 25, 2022.


  





	 	CHANNEL VENTURES GROUP, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Markwin Maring
	 	Name: Markwin Maring
	 	Title: Statutory Director
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3140 

To provide that an individual may not occupy the position of the Director 

of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for more than 

12 years, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2021 

Mr. DAVIDSON (for himself, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. ROY, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. STEUBE, 

and Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide that an individual may not occupy the position 

of the Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for more than 12 years, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fauci’s Incompetence 

5 Requires Early Dismissal Act’’ or the ‘‘FIRED Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3140 IH

1 SEC. 2. 12-YEAR LIMIT FOR OCCUPYING POSITION OF DI2 RECTOR OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AL3 LERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 

5 405(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, an individual 

6 may not serve as Director of the National Institute of Al7 lergy and Infectious Diseases for a period greater than 

8 12 total years. 

9 (b) APPLICATION.—Subsection (a) shall apply to any 

10 individual appointed as such Director before, on, or after 

11 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco VILLANUEVA-NAVARRO, also known as Pancho, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-41179

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 19, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David Cano, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Villanueva-Navarro (Villanueva) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Villanueva has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s briefs discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit
      32**





**Certification
      of the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





I,
      Kenneth S. Forster, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
      Report of APC Group, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended November
      30, 3007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
      10-KSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
      results of operations of APC Group, Inc.





Date:
      June 20, 2008





By:
            */s/
                Kenneth S. Forster*Kenneth
                S. Forster,Chief
                Executive Officer, andPrincipal
                Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7655

BYRON MONROE STEWART,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT KOPPEL, Warden; STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv02866-AMD)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Byron Monroe Stewart, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Byron Monroe Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and dismissing it on that basis.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Stewart’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000).

Stewart’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254

petition.

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
{"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 – October 11, 2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"n6HKc3eqCD\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-october-11-2019\/\">Applicants – October 11, 2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-october-11-2019\/embed\/#?secret=n6HKc3eqCD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – October 11, 2019” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"n6HKc3eqCD\" 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"}