alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

          <ARTICLE> 5
          <CIK> 0000825410
          <NAME> LANDAUER, INC.
          <MULTIPLIER> 1,000
                 
          <S>                             <C>
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
          <PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
          <PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
          <CASH>                                           3,433
          <SECURITIES>                                     5,937
          <RECEIVABLES>                                    8,798
          <ALLOWANCES>                                       188
          <INVENTORY>                                      1,173
          <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,722
          <PP&E>                                          19,204
          <DEPRECIATION>                                  11,528
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,171
          <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,044
          <BONDS>                                              0
          <COMMON>                                           848
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
          <PREFERRED>                                          0
          <OTHER-SE>                                      25,279
          <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,171
          <SALES>                                         29,572
          <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,572
          <CGS>                                            9,035
          <TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,035
          <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
          <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
          <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
          <INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,754
          <INCOME-TAX>                                     4,946
          <INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,808
          <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
          <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
          <CHANGES>                                            0
          <NET-INCOME>                                     8,808
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
          <EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
                  
          
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED 01/31/2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                              338,638
<SECURITIES>                                        439,054
<RECEIVABLES>                                       259,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                         28,691
<INVENTORY>                                          97,653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,175,531
<PP&E>                                              212,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                       91,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,352,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               326,705
<BONDS>                                             300,000
<COMMON>                                             15,382
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                          695,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,352,368
<SALES>                                             872,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    872,190
<CGS>                                               329,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       329,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    373,069
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   19,310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     185,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                         15,577
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 170,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        170,261
<EPS-BASIC>                                          1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          1.07


</TABLE>
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45605

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MARVIN LEE LOVETTE ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: August 8, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jonathan Medema , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony domestic violence, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lo ri A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Marvin Lee Lovette pled guilty to felony domestic violence , Idaho Code § § 18

- 903(a),
918(2) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two years

. Lovette appeals, co ntending that the district court erred in failing to
retain jurisdiction and that the sentence is excessive.
The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the trial court to
obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for
probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction.
State v. Chapel , 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565,2 567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s
refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to
conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. State v. Beebe , 113 Idaho
977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill , 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based
upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction in this case.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); Toohill , 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710 . When reviewing the length of a sentence, we

consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 39 1
(2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say

that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Lovette ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
- Home
- Regulations

# Regulatory Guidance

Welcome to the FMCSA Guidance Portal. This web portal is a searchable, indexed database that contains and links to all guidance documents in effect from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, unless expressly authorized by statute or incorporated into a contract.

To comment on any guidance document, or to request issuance, reconsideration, modification, or rescission of any guidance document, please identify the guidance document in your request and send it to: FMCSAguidance@dot.gov. NOTE: The FMCSAguidance mailbox is not intended to serve as a mailbox for general inquiries. For inquiries that go beyond the limited purpose of the FMCSAguidance mailbox, please call FMCSA's Information Line (800-832-5660) or visit FMCSA's "Contact Us" page to send your inquiry to the appropriate mailbox.

# Pagination

-  «« First 
-  ‹‹‹ 
-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-  7 
-  8 
-  9 
- …
-  ››› 
-  »Last »
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Applauds ILWU-PMA West Coast Ports Announcements - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"M16iJP1UdB\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-applauds-ilwu-pma-west-coast-ports-announcements\/\">FMCS Applauds ILWU-PMA West Coast Ports Announcements<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-applauds-ilwu-pma-west-coast-ports-announcements\/embed\/#?secret=M16iJP1UdB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Applauds ILWU-PMA West Coast Ports Announcements” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"M16iJP1UdB\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) Acting Director John Pinto today applauded the recent announcements regarding a three-year contract extension between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and of the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). When finalized on August 4, the extension will ensure stable labor relations among employers and the ILWU […]"}
#### Maria Lourdes Gomez PALACIOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-71805.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Maria Lourdes Gomez Palacios, pro se.

Miriam Montserrat Gomez Palacios, pro se.

CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, W. Manning Evans, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision that petitioners failed to establish continuous physical presence in the United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); *Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004).

A further review of the record reflects that the constitutional arguments raised by the petitioners in their opening brief are not colorable. Specifically, this court has previously held that the physical presence requirement does not violate due process. *See Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales,*463 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir.2006).

In addition, petitioners are unable to demonstrate that the immigration judge’s *765denial of their request for a continuance violated due process, because the denial did not prejudice petitioners’ cancellation application. *See Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS,*767 F.2d 1387, 1394-95 (9th Cir.1985).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Sola to Lead Fact Finding Focusing on Cruise Line Issues","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5HV8wCa7RP\"><a href=\"\/sola-fact-finding-cruise-line-issues\/\">Commissioner Sola to Lead Fact Finding Focusing on Cruise Line Issues<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/sola-fact-finding-cruise-line-issues\/embed\/#?secret=5HV8wCa7RP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Sola to Lead Fact Finding Focusing on Cruise Line Issues” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"5HV8wCa7RP\" 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"}
{"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":"Remarks of Commissioner Rebecca Dye – Acceptance of Women\u2019s Leadership in Supply Chain Award","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4gRobvC6gZ\"><a href=\"\/remarks-of-commissioner-rebecca-dye-acceptance-of-womens-leadership-in-supply-chain-award\/\">Remarks of Commissioner Rebecca Dye – Acceptance of Women\u2019s Leadership in Supply Chain Award<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/remarks-of-commissioner-rebecca-dye-acceptance-of-womens-leadership-in-supply-chain-award\/embed\/#?secret=4gRobvC6gZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Remarks of Commissioner Rebecca Dye – Acceptance of Women\u2019s Leadership in Supply Chain Award” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"4gRobvC6gZ\" 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"}
73 A.3d 524

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Edwin Rios ROMERO, Appellant.

No. 674 CAP.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Dee. 14, 2012.

Decided Aug. 1, 2013.

Robert Emmett Madden, Esq., Law Offices of R. Emmett Madden, Jenkintown, for Edwin Rios Romero.

Heather F. Gallagher, Esq., Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office, Amy Zapp, Esq., PA Office of Attorney General, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2013, appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Appeal is GRANTED.
77 A.3d 1256

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Cordell ADAMS, Petitioner.

No. 97 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 5, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2013, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal *Nunc Pro Tunc*is DENIED.
{"id":7678,"date":"2023-05-11T10:55:45","date_gmt":"2023-05-11T14:55:45","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=7678"},"modified":"2023-05-11T10:55:45","modified_gmt":"2023-05-11T14:55:45","slug":"several-fmc-applications-are-currently-experiencing-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/several-fmc-applications-are-currently-experiencing-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"Several FMC Applications are Currently Experiencing Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Please be aware that all FMC applications are functioning; however, our Office of Information Technology is currently troubleshooting an issue concerning email notifications not being sent from the following applications: Form 1, Form 18, OTI Renewals, Form 65 Renewals, eMonitoring, eAgreements, and BCL Fileroom.<\/p>\n<p>Thank you for your patience.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Please be aware that all FMC applications are functioning; however, our Office of Information Technology is currently troubleshooting an issue concerning email notifications not being sent from the following applications: Form 1, Form 18, OTI Renewals, Form 65 Renewals, eMonitoring, eAgreements, and BCL Fileroom. Thank you for your patience.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7678"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7678"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7678\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7679,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7678\/revisions\/7679"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}