alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Patricia H. Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-02999-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Dalimonte Rueb, LLP 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/27/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8786 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8786 Filed 11/10/17 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stacy Holtz","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stacy-a-holtznasa-gov\/","title":"STS-43","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qfS4bgX3NC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-43\/\">STS-43<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-43\/embed\/#?secret=qfS4bgX3NC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-43” — NASA\" data-secret=\"qfS4bgX3NC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\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<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 99.1



                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of AEI  Net  Lease
Income   &   Growth   Fund  XX  Limited   Partnership   (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June  30,
2002,  as  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert P.  Johnson,
President  of  AEI  Fund Management XX, Inc.,  the  Managing
General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to  18
U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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
          Partnership.


                              /s/ Robert P Johnson
                                  Robert P. Johnson
                                  President of
                                  AEI Fund Management XX, Inc.,
                                  the Managing General Partner
                                  August 6, 2002
#### Rapp *v.*Grayson, on Appeal.

*Tuesday, May*6.

THE refusal of the Court to give instructions to the jury, which are good law but not applicable to the case, cannot be assigned for error.

The usages of commerce regulate the duties and privileges of commission-merchants, and generally form their contracts in business; which usages are matters of fact, and susceptible of proof.

It is as much the duty of a commission-merchant to obey instructions, with regard to the shipping of goods deposited with him to be shipped, as it is to keep them safely while in his care. This duty devolves on all who are acting for him as clerks or agents; and, while they are recognized as acting for him, their authority must be presumed to be co-extensivc with his, as to the business he is thus transacting by them.

*G.*deposited goods in the ware-house of *R.,*a commission-merchant, and *R.*agreed to ship the goods to a certain place by a good boat, but not with *W.*and his boat. *R.,*afterwards, shipped the goods with *W.*and in his boat. *Held,*in case the goods were lost,—first, that *R.*was liable to *G.*for the damages sustained by the loss, and that he would have been so liable, had he merely contracted for the safe-keeping of the goods;— secondly, that even if R. were not bound, in law, to obey the instructions given him as to the shipping of the goods, he would still be subject to the action of G. for delivering the goods to *W.*contrary to those instructions;—thirdly, that though *G.*might have recovered against *W.,*and the recovery would have barred a subsequent suit against *R.,*yet *G.*was not bound to resort to *W.*But it was also *held,*that the action by *G.*against *131
      *R.*could not be sustained without proof of the loss of the goods.

If the evidence, relative to the merits of the action, be contradictory, and the jury have any grounds for their verdict in favour of the plaintiff, a Court of errorswill not reverse a judgment on the verdict, because a new trial had been refused. *A li*ter, if there was'no evidence of a fact essential to the support of the action.
January 27 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF GEORGIA M. GATOURA FOULARD AND MICHAEL WOLTER FOULARD

NO. 14

- 14

- 00949

- CV

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on October 6, 2014. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the app eal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.
We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108

- 1750; (617) 557

- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC

- 12215

CARE AND PROTECTION OF PENE LOPE

.

May 18, 2018.

Supreme Judicial Court , Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Civil , Failure to prosecute.

In October
, 2016, the father of a child who was the subject of a care and protection proceeding in the Juvenile Court filed
a pet ition in the county court for relief from the denial of his request for an injunction preventing the child from being

removed from the United States. A single justice of this court denied relief, and, in November, 2016, the father appealed to
this court. He filed a motion for an extension of time to file his brief and was given until December 23, 2016, to file it

. He
did not do so. The child's mother, with the child's assent, has moved to dismiss the appeal, as has the Department of Children

and Families. 1 See Mass. R. A. P. 19 (c), 365 Mass. 867 (1974).

In response , the father does not explain his failure to file a brief in this matter, but makes unsubstantiated allegations concerning the child's treatment outside this country. 2 The

father has had ample time to file a brief in this matter and has

not done so. Although the father is appearing pro se, we hold

1 In addition, this court issued a notice preceding dismissal under the May 17, 1988
, s tanding o rder concerning

d ismissals of a ppeals and r eports p ending in this court for l ack

of p rosecution

.

2 The father also suggests that this appeal cannot be
dismissed until his underlying appeal to the Appeals Court is resolved. Without passing on the correctness of that proposition, we note that the father did not file a brief in that appeal, and it was dismissed for lack of prosecution.2

him to the same standards in this regard as litigants represented by counsel. See, e .g., Rasheed v. Commonwealth , 440

Mass. 1027 , 1027 (2 003); Solimine v. Davidian , 422 Mass. 1002
, 1002 (1996). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 3

Appeal dismissed

.

Harriet Schechter for the mother.
Roberta M. Driscoll for the child.
Brian R. Pariser for Department of Children and Families.

The f ather, pro se.

3 The Department of Children and Families also suggests that the appeal is moot and that the courts of Massachusetts lack jurisdiction due to a child custody proceeding in Switzerland. Due to our disposition, we need not address these issues.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Banke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jim-bankenasa-gov\/","title":"NASA, GE Complete Historic Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Tests","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wEziUTGtGs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-ge-complete-historic-hybrid-electric-propulsion-tests\/\">NASA, GE Complete Historic Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Tests<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nasa-ge-complete-historic-hybrid-electric-propulsion-tests\/embed\/#?secret=wEziUTGtGs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, GE Complete Historic Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Tests” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wEziUTGtGs\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\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<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/grc-rlm-sage-amato.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

March 23, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40836

Summary Calendar

CHARLES KENNETH NELSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; ROBERT HERRERA,

Warden, Beto I Unit; SHERRI MILLIGAN,

Correctional Officer IV, Beto I Unit;

S. SCHUMACHER, Grievance Officer,

Huntsville, Texas,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CV-152-LED-HWM

Before GARWOOD, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Kenneth Nelson, Texas prisoner #503292, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Nelson’s

complaint sought compensation for damage to his personal property.** Nelson, though properly warned of the need to do so, failed

to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation.

2 The district court did not plainly err in dismissing Nelson’s

deprivation-of-property claim as frivolous. D ouglass v . United

Servs. Auto Ass’n

, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc). ** Texas has an adequate post-deprivation remedy for loss of

prisoner property. Murphy v. Collins , 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.

1994).

Nelson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

See Howard v. King

, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 T H C IR

. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s

dismissal as frivolous each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). S ee Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (

5th Cir. 1996). Nelson received a previous strike as the result of

the dismissal as frivolous of his appeal from the denial of F ED

. R.

C IV

. P. 60(b) rel ief in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. S ee Nelson

v. Soliz

, No. 95-40714 (5th Cir. Dec. 20, 1995). Therefore, Nelson

has accumulated at least three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

and he is BARRED from bringing any civil action or appeal IFP while

he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he shows that

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED.3
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL ROBBINS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-551

[September 30, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Edward Harold 

Merrigan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12016631CF10A.

Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., 

Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"Work Underway on Large Cargo Landers for NASA\u2019s Artemis Moon Missions","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"A3Et6inbXh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/artemis-campaign-development-division\/human-landing-system-program\/work-underway-on-large-cargo-landers-for-nasas-artemis-moon-missions\/\">Work Underway on Large Cargo Landers for NASA\u2019s Artemis Moon Missions<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/artemis-campaign-development-division\/human-landing-system-program\/work-underway-on-large-cargo-landers-for-nasas-artemis-moon-missions\/embed\/#?secret=A3Et6inbXh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Work Underway on Large Cargo Landers for NASA\u2019s Artemis Moon Missions” — NASA\" data-secret=\"A3Et6inbXh\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\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<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/PIA12927\/PIA12927~orig.jpg?w=600&h=1600&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1600}
#### MANASQUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. TOWNSHIP OF WALL.

June 5, 1984.

The Court having been advised that the parties wish to have this matter marked as withdrawn, and the court having agreed to dispose of this matter on that basis;

It is ORDERED that the petition and cross-petition for certification are hereby dismissed as moot.
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

(2) NASA contracts sourced in the state in FY21; see FY21 NASA Economic Impact Report (3) Categories are not additive. For more information on FY21 Sample Obligations, please visit: NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS)

(1) For more information please visit: Value of NASA 

NASA Overall State Impact(1)

• Jobs Supported 153

• Economic Output $36,816,000

• State Tax Revenue $1,879,000

Moon to Mars Campaign State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 7

• Economic Output $1,498,000

• State Tax Revenue $42,000

Investments in Climate Change Research & 

Technology State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 107

• Economic Output $26,057,000

• State Tax Revenue $1,586,000

Sample Obligations(3)

Business $1,339,334 

• Other Than Small Business $0 

• Small Business $1,339,334 

 – 8(A) Program $0 

 – Economically Disadvantaged Women 

 Owned Small Business $222,160 

 – Historically Underutilized Business 

 (HUBZone) $0 

 – Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

 Business $0 

 – Small Business Innovative Research $0 

 – Small Disadvantaged Business $222,160 

 – Veteran Owned Small Business $0 

 – Woman Owned Small Business $525,916 

 – Small Business Only $415,337 

Educational $3,239,062 

Government $0 

Non-profit Institutions $0 

Leading State-based NASA Business 

Contractors

Sterling Computers Corporation $676,547 

Aerostar International, Inc. $415,337 

RPM Innovations, Inc. $247,450 

Leading State-based NASA Education Funding 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology $2,156,924 

South Dakota State University $838,316 

Sinte Gleska University $243,822 

Space Grant Consortium 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology $800,000 

SOUTH DAKOTA

FY21 State Procurement Investments (2) $14.3 M
For more information about the

Economic Impact Report

for your state, go to:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Headquarters

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

www.nasa.gov/centers

www.nasa.gov

NASA Astronauts

(Former)

Michael Fossum

Charles “Sam” Gemar

There is 1 NASA Federal job and 98* contractors in the state of 

South Dakota. 

For every NASA federal job located in South Dakota, an 

additional 152** jobs are supported in the state economy. For 

every million dollars’ worth of economic output generated by 

NASA federal jobs, an additional $49.7** million worth of output 

is sustained throughout the state economy. 

* Indirect effects are the purchases of goods and services by 

government agencies and private sector contractors, as well as by 

the industries that supply them.

** Multiplier based on IMPLAN Input Output (I-O) model. To learn more, 

please visit: https://blog.implan.com/understanding-implan-multipliers

SOUTH DAKOTA

153

NASA Jobs

Supported

One South Dakota supplier contributed to NASA’s Artemis program. An example of the state’s contributions is the 

supply of custom configured workstations for use in the Orion Program Test Labs.