 It was a gratuity, which is something far less serious. And the issue was just, does this particular statute cover this kind of gratuity? Their answer was no. I think based on the way that statute was written, that's a reasonable outcome. Well, she keeps underscoring the plain text of the 666, which is something that this particular court, the textualists say that, oh, when there's a question about a law, you go back to the text of the simple reading of the text.