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

No. 10-50035.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 7, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 10, 2010.

Patrick R. Fitzgerald, Assistant U.S., Anthony James Lewis, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Alka Sagar, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas Michael Brown, Esquire, Kenneth P. White, Brown White & Newhouse, *220LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Four months after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting his brother in filing false tax returns that failed to report almost $400,000 in income from a coupon processing business, Shalabi filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The “fair and just reasons” he advanced in support of his motion were (1) that he *believed*his plea was part of a package deal involving his brother, and that if he did not go through with it, his sickly brother would be forced to undergo a daunting retrial, and (2) that he did not understand that the consequences of his felony tax plea might include the loss of business licenses he needed to make a living.

The district court held a thorough hearing on Shalabi’s claims, and denied his motion to withdraw. He appeals that ruling.

The district court’s findings and conclusions that (1) there was insufficient objective evidence to conclude that Shalabi’s plea was a part of a package deal, and (2) that Shalabi was fully aware of the possible consequences to his business licenses before entering the plea are fully supported by the factual record. Thus, the district court’s exercise of discretion in denying Shalabi’s motion was appropriate.

As we recently said in *United States v. Briggs,*623 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir.2010), it appears that Shalabi “only wanted to change his plea once he was face-to-face with the full consequences of his conduct.”

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

328 CA 13-01390 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

SHARELLE REYNOLDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD KELLY, BETTE KELLY AND MARK KELLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

ATHARI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, UTICA (MO ATHARI OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
BOEGGEMAN, GEORGE & CORDE, P.C., ALBANY (PAUL A. HURLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered November 29, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order disqualifying the designated defense examiner.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as the result of her exposure to lead paint as a child while residing in an apartment owned by defendants. Plaintiff contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying her cross motion for a protective order seeking disqualification of the designated defense examiner, a neuropsychologist, or, in the alternative, directing that the examination be recorded. While this appeal was pending, the challenged examination was conducted and the examiner has since issued a report. We conclude that plaintiff’s appeal is moot as a result of those intervening circumstances, and this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Cuevas v 1738 Assoc., L.L.C. , 111 AD3d 416, 416; see also Hughes v Farrey , 39 AD3d 431, 431; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). We therefore dismiss the appeal.

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Presidential Documents 66271

Executive Order 13247 of December 18, 2001

Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of

Veterans Affairs

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, including Subchapter III of Chapter

33 of title 5 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered that:

Sec. 1. Subject to the provisions of section 3 of this Executive Order, the

officers named in section 2, in the order listed, shall act as and perform

the functions and duties of the office of Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) during any period when both the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary

of Veterans Affairs (Deputy Secretary) have died, resigned, or are otherwise

unable to perform the functions and duties of the office of Secretary.

Sec. 2. Order of Succession.

(a) Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Health;

(b) Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Benefits;

(c) Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Memorial Affairs;

(d) General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(e) Assistant Secretaries of Veterans Affairs, in the order in which they

shall have taken the oath of office as Assistant Secretaries, other than the

Chief Financial Officer and, if an Assistant Secretary, the Chief Information

Officer;

(f) Chief Information Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs, if

the Chief Information Officer is an officer appointed by the President by

and with the consent of the Senate;

(g) Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and

(h) Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

Sec. 3. Exceptions.

(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)–

(h) in an acting capacity shall act as Secretary pursuant to this Executive

Order.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Executive Order, the President

retains discretion, to the extent permitted by Subchapter III of Chapter

66272 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Presidential Documents

33 of title 5 of the United States Code, to depart from this Executive

Order in designating an acting Secretary.

Filed 12

[FR Doc. 01

–20–

–

01; 8:45 am]

31672

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 18, 2001.

W

Billing code 3195–01–P
#### Elena Meza MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73743.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 27, 2008.

Elena Meza Morales, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, James A. Hurley, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Mark C. Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Elena Meza Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting her applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

An intervening change in the law requires us to remand the petition. Concluding that Meza Morales bore the burden of proving that a disqualifying conviction did not exist, the BIA held that Meza Morales’s burglary conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude. The BIA recognized that burglary does not categorically involve moral turpitude, and the burglary conviction record does not include the kind of judicially noticeable documents that would support such a determination under the modified categorical approach. *Cf. Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 1013, 1019-20 (9th Cir.2005). The BIA, however, did not have the benefit of our decision in *Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir.2007), in which we held that an alien seeking to establish that criminal convictions do not bar cancellation of removal relief may do so by pointing to inconclusive conviction records. *Id.*at 1129-30.

Because Meza Morales’ other conviction qualifies for the petty offense exception contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), *see*CahPenal Code § 490 (petty theft is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six months), we re*573mand for the BIA to reconsider Meza Morales’ eligibility for relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### In re: Yul CARTER, a/k/a Scamp, Petitioner.

No. 10-1787.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.

Yul Carter, Petitioner Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yul Carter petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to alter or amend judgment. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to *800act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied the motion on July 1, 2010. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Carter’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brian Anthony DAVIS, also known as Stamma, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-11203

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 2010.

Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian Anthony Davis, Bradford, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brian Anthony Davis, federal prisoner # 40427-053, appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Davis moves for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court has certified that the appeal is not in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

The district court had previously reduced Davis’s sentence from life to 360 months in prison based on Amendment 505. However, the district court concluded that Amendment 706 was not applicable to Davis’s case. Davis argues that Amendment 706 served to reduce his base offense level by two levels and asserts that the district court erred in concluding that he was not eligible for a sentence reduction and in not providing an explanation for its decision.

A district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and its interpretation of the *979Guidelines is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010). A district court may reduce “a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). A reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; *United States v. Carter,*595 F.3d 575, 578-80 (5th Cir.2010).

The denial of Davis’s § 3582 motion was not an abuse of discretion because the sentencing court is not required to provide its reasons for the denial. *See Evans,*587 F.3d at 673-74. Furthermore, the sentencing court is under no obligation to reduce the sentence at all. *Id.*at 673. Additionally, because Davis was held accountable for sentencing purposes *for*more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, a sentence reduction was not permitted. *See*§ 2D1.1, Drug Quantity Table. Davis 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 motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it 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 99.2
 
 CERTIFICATION 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 Aura Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Neal F. Meehan, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods indicated. ****Date: October 11, 2004
By:
/s/ Neal F. MeehanNeal F. MeehanActing Chief Financial Officer




|
|
|
|

|
|
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Services - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BGe4OrASYy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/\">Services<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/embed\/#?secret=BGe4OrASYy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Services” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"BGe4OrASYy\" 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":"FMCS provides comprehensive conflict resolution services in five major areas: collective bargaining mediation; grievance mediation; relationship development training; ADR services to government entities; and education, outreach and advocacy. Click a link on the left to learn more about our specific services."}
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>			    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>   	    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           Dec-31-95
<PERIOD-START>  	    Jan-01-95
<PERIOD-END>    	    Dec-31-95
<CASH>                          6,007
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                  18,228
<ALLOWANCES>                    2,321
<INVENTORY>                    10,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               33,487
<PP&E>                         12,676
<DEPRECIATION>                  9,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 44,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           9,796
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                           52
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   44,544
<SALES>                       125,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               125,813
<CGS>                          92,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  92,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  566
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 5,348
<INCOME-TAX>                    2,266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             3,082
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                    3,082
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0.59
        

</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Big Ridge, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor              

#   Big Ridge, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor

Big Ridge LAKE 2011-0699and JWR SE 2011-477-R Meeting Notice 2-19-15.pdf

Big Ridge LAKE 2011-0699and JWR SE 2011-477-R Meeting Notice 2-19-15.htm

big-ridge-v-secretary-labor-docket-lake-2011-699-r-et-al-and-jim-walter-resources-docket-nos.se-2011-477-r-et-al-1pm.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
{"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":"THE Alliance files an amendment to add further detail to protections in the event of an insolvency","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5od2XAB7Tf\"><a href=\"\/the-alliance-files-an-amendment-to-add-further-detail-to-protections-in-the-event-of-an-insolvency\/\">THE Alliance files an amendment to add further detail to protections in the event of an insolvency<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/the-alliance-files-an-amendment-to-add-further-detail-to-protections-in-the-event-of-an-insolvency\/embed\/#?secret=5od2XAB7Tf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“THE Alliance files an amendment to add further detail to protections in the event of an insolvency” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"5od2XAB7Tf\" 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"}