alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEQUIAN DEMORRAL
WATSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 4582

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 7, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Linda L. Nobles , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Colleen Dierdre Mullen, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren Brudnicki, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, RAY, and SWANSON

, J J

. , CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****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 Golden Telecom, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (“the Report”), I, Brian Rich, Senior Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 5th day of August2005./s/ BRIAN A. RICHBrian A. Rich
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF 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, Norman Meier, Chief Financial Officer, of Shrink Nanotechnologies, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: April 16, 2013By:/s/ Norman MeierChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
NATALIE JACKSON-FULLER,

Appellant,

v.

PINELLAS COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

DIVISION OF RISK 

MANAGEMENT, AND 

PINELLAS COUNTY RISK 

MANAGEMENT,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1050

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 6, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Stephen L. Rosen, Judge.

Date of Accident: December 12, 2014.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale and Jesse Rowe of Van 

Dingenen Law, Winter Park, for Appellant.

Kelly Lynn Vicari of Pinellas County Attorney’s Office, Clearwater, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
{"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":"Pacific Ports Agreement Clears FMC Review","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"s9KI6olLSE\"><a href=\"\/pacific-ports-agreement-clears-fmc-review\/\">Pacific Ports Agreement Clears FMC Review<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/pacific-ports-agreement-clears-fmc-review\/embed\/#?secret=s9KI6olLSE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Pacific Ports Agreement Clears FMC Review” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"s9KI6olLSE\" 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"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen Douglas JULIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50435

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2016.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ü.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephen Douglas Julian, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Stephen Douglas Julian, federal prisoner # 35886-180, seeks leave to proceed in for-*330ma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district. court’s ’ denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on amendment 782. By moving to proceed IFP, Julian is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

A sentencing court is under no obligation at all to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir.2009). The district court’s decision whether to grant such a motion is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir.2011). If the record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the motion as a whole and at least implicitly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, then there is no abuse of discretion. *United States v. Whi-tebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir.1995); *see also Evans,*587 F.3d at 673.

Review of the record in light of pertinent authority shows-no abuse of discretion in the district court’s disposition of Julian’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Although Julian was eligible for a reduction, the district court was not required to give him one. *See Evans,*587 F.3d at 673. The district court explicitly noted that it took the § 3553(a) factors into account when considering the motion.

Additionally, it noted his prior offenses and that he manufactured methamphetamine in proximity to a small child and pregnant woman. These facts go to the § 3553(a)(1) concerns of “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” Consequently, the district court acted properly by taking them into consideration. *See Whitebird,*55 F.3d at 1010. When considered' as a whole, the record shows that the district court thoughtfully deliberated upon the motion before denying it and thus did not abuse its discretion. *See id.*

Julian has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED, and his 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 *330published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Emiliano MENDEZ-OCHOA, a.k.a. Rufino Bernabe Reyes; Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 08-72307, 08-73809.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, En-cino, CA, for Petitioner.

District Director, Esquire, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward C. Durant, R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, Trial, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Emiliano Mendez-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in absentia, and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petitions for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Ochoa’s motion to reopen where the Order to Show Cause showed it had been personally served on Mendez — Ochoa and contained notice of his next scheduled hearing in both Spanish and English. *See Khan v. Ashcroft,*374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir.2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Ochoa’s motion to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the agency’s prior decision denying his motion to reopen. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Mendez-Ochoa’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hemer Hemeli LOPEZ-GOMEZ, also known as Hermer Emeli Lopez-Gomez, also known as Lomeli Perez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40760

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 16, 2013.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Hemer Hemeli Lopez-Gomez, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*383PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hemer Hemeli Lopez-Gomez 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), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Lopez-Gomez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE 

OF MARYLAND

 * COURT OF APPEALS

v. * OF MARYLAND

 

* Misc. Docket AG No. 66,

LEWIS MAURICE SILBER

* September Term, 2019

 

O R D E R

WHEREAS, the parties have filed an Amended Joint Petition for Disbarment by 

Consent pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736;

WHEREAS, in the Amended Joint Petition, Respondent Lewis Maurice Silber 

admits that, if a hearing were held, there would be sufficient evidence to prove that he 

misappropriated client and third-party funds and thereby violated Rules 1.15(a) and (d), 

and 8.4(c) and (d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct;

WHEREAS, in the Amended Joint Petition, Mr. Silber contends that the 

misappropriation was unintentional and the result of poor accounting practices, but 

nonetheless acknowledges that there is a sufficient factual basis for concluding that he 

violated Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty);

WHEREAS, this Court has not recognized negligent misappropriation as a basis 

for finding a violation of Rule 8.4(c) and therefore understands Mr. Silber to be 

acknowledging that there is sufficient evidence to prove intentional misappropriation in 

violation of Rule 8.4(c);
WHEREAS, upon consideration of the Amended Joint Petition, it is this 28th day 

of February, 2020, 

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, Lewis 

Maurice Silber, be, and hereby is, disbarred from the practice of law in the State of 

Maryland, and it is further 

ORDERED, that the disbarment of Respondent shall not become effective until 120 

days from the date of this Order, so long as Respondent complies with the Monitoring 

Agreement attached to the Amended Joint Petition; and it is further 

ORDERED, that upon the date of disbarment, the Clerk of this Court shall remove 

the name of Lewis Maurice Silber from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify 

that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks 

of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-736(d).

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3136 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3136

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen the disclosure 
 requirements for institutions of higher education related to foreign 
                          gifts and contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2021

 Mr. Brooks (for himself, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Gooden of Texas, 
  Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. Babin, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, and Mr. 
    Gaetz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen the disclosure 
 requirements for institutions of higher education related to foreign 
                          gifts and 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 ``Zero Foreign Influence in Education 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND CONTRACTS.

    Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011f) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the value'' and all 
        that follows through ``calendar year,'';
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the identity 
                of each foreign source (whether a natural person or a 
                legal entity), and'' before ``the aggregate dollar''; 
                and
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, and the name 
                of each foreign government (including the name of each 
                specific government agency or department, if 
                applicable)'' before the period; and
            (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c)--
                    (A) by inserting ``the identity of the foreign 
                source,'' before ``the amount,''; and
                    (B) by striking ``and a description of'' and 
                inserting ``the identity of the specific department, 
                college, project, or other division of the institution 
                that is the recipient (if applicable), and a 
                description of the intended purpose and''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

                    The U.S. Small Business Administration National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board                           ( print page 65235)                        will hold a public meeting on Sunday, January 13, 2002, from 11 am to 5 pm CST, in the Executive Board Room at the Doubletree Hotel located in Little Rock, Arkansas. This meeting will be held to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration or others present.                

Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Ellen Thrasher, in writing by letter or fax no later than January 2, 2002 in order to be included on the agenda. For further information, please write or call Ellen Thrasher, Designated Federal Officer U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20416. Telephone number (202) 205-6817, FAX (202) 205-7727.

Steve Tupper,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-31098 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
#### Oliver HILSENRATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED and Candover Investments PLC, Defendants-Appellees. *301Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver Hilsenrath, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 08-15726, 08-15728.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

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 and Hana Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court’s Orders dismissing their actions against Equity Trust and other foreign corporations and citizens, alleging RICO violations, malicious prosecution, extortion, obstruction of justice and violations of due process arising from a 2001 settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo, *Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy,*453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Candover Investments PLC, Insinger de Beaufort Holdings SA, and Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited because it lacked personal jurisdiction over these non-resident defendants. *See Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme,*433 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring a non-resident to have “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in a forum for a court to exercise general jurisdiction, and “purposefully direct” activities and transactions within the forum for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction).

The district court also properly dismissed the claims against Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited and its executives on the ground that Jersey is an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal. *See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,*454 U.S. 235, 254 n. 22, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).

AFFIRMED1.

**

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

1

. Appellee's motion to take judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.
{"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 29, 2014","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3mK9nKynEB\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-october-29-2014\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – October 29, 2014<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-october-29-2014\/embed\/#?secret=3mK9nKynEB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – October 29, 2014” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"3mK9nKynEB\" 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"}