alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1

                   AMERICAN HOMESTAR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES
                   ------------------------------------------


                   ACTIVE  SUBSIDIARIES:
                   --------------------
                   American  Homestar  Financial  Services,  Inc.
                   American  Homestar  Mortgage,  LLP   (50% - owned)
                   American  Homestar  of  Burleson,  LP
                   American  Homestar  of  Lancaster,  LP
                   Brilliant  Carriers,  Inc.
                   Homestar  21,  LLC   (50%  -  owned)
                   HSTR  General  Holdings,  Inc.
                   HSTR  Manufacturing  Holdings,  Inc.
                   HSTR  Retail  Holdings,  Inc.
                   Lifestar  Reinsurance  Limited
                   Nationwide  Housing  Properties,  LP
                   Nationwide  Housing  Systems,  LP
                   Oak  Creek  Homes,  LP
                   Oak  Creek  Housing  Properties,  LP
                   Roadmasters  Transport  Company,  Inc. (51% - owned)
                   Western  Insurance  Agency,  Inc.

                   INACTIVE  SUBSIDIARIES:
                   ----------------------
                   Amcorp  Management  Service  Company
                   American  Homestar  of  Alabama,  Inc.
                   American  Homestar  of  North  Carolina,  Inc.
                   American  Homestar  West,  Inc.
                   Associated  Retailers  Group,  LP
                   Associated  Retailers  Holdings,  Inc.
                   First  Value  Homes,  Inc.
                   Gold  Medal  Homes,  Inc.
                   Gold  Medal  NC,  Inc.
                   Homexpress,  Inc.
                   Nationwide  NC  Homes,  Inc.
                   Nationwide  of  Alabama,  Inc.
                   Nationwide  West,  LP
                   Pacific  II  Northwest  Homes,  Inc.
                   Pacific  Northwest  Homes,  Inc.
                   Paradise  Mortgage,  Inc.
                   R-Anell  Custom  Homes,  Inc.


All entities are 100% owned except where indicated to the contrary.


<PAGE>
#### Margate Company, complainant, v. Charles B. Penrose et al., defendants.

[Argued and decided June 27th, 1913.]

On appeal from an order of the conut of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning.

*Mr. H. Starr Giddings,*for the complainant.

*Messrs. Bourgeois é*Coulomb, for Armend L. Bartlett, appellant.

Per Curiam.

This is a bill for partition of lands. The title of the complainant to an undivided three-eighths is not disputed. The title of the appellant is questioned by some of her co-defendants. She applied for an order staying proceedings until the title, could be determined at law. The vice-chancellor refused the stay and she appealed. We think it unnecessary to consider the effect of the act of 1912. *P. L. 10 IS p. 82k.*The complainant has a right to proceed with her suit for partition and cannot be deprived of that right by a controversy between the defendants. *Phelps*v. Green, *3 John. Ch. 302: Egner*v. *Meis, 36 Atl. Rep. 943.*

The order is affirmed.

*For*affirmance—The Chiue-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trencitard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vreden-BURGI-r, CONGDON, WHITE, HEPPENIIEIMER-12.

*For*reversal—None.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Caleb Benson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04452-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Murray Law Firm

(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 12/1/2017, 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: December 8, 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 9263 Filed 12/11/17 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 9263 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 2
#### John Teny et al *v.*William Roberts et al.

Fraudulent Conveyances — Parent and Child.

A sale of land by a father to his son, for a valuable consideration, paid in full by the son, will not be held to be fraudulent asi to creditors of the father.

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 1, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

G. C. Koberts, Samuel A. Green, et al, appellants, being creditors of William Koberts, and he being in failing circumstances, obtained judgment and had execution levied on a certain house and lot in Owenton, and became the purchaser and got the sheriff’s deed therefor.

Previously, however, William Roberts had conveyed said house *240and- lot to his son, Gr. O. Roberts, and son-in-law, S. A. Green, for the recited consideration of $1,450, and they had possession of it.

Lindseys, *for appellants.*

*Cr*addock, *for appellees.*

Teny, etc., brought this suit to recover said house and lot, which G. O. Roberts and 8. A. Green resist.

The sole question is as to whether the conveyance by William Roberts to his son and son-in-law was fraudulent or for a valuable consideration.

Family arrangements made by a 'failing debtor are always regarded with great suspicion by the law and its courts, yet when these are founded on a valuable consideration like such contracts made with other persons, are to be upheld.

It may be more difficult for kindred to show a *bona fide*transaction than other persons, because of this suspicion and jealousy of the law, yet, when it is shown, it must be governed by the same rules.

The evidence establishes that G. O. Roberts and S. A. Green were the securities for the old man in a certain debt for $1,450, and that they agreed to and did pay said debt as the consideration for this conveyance, and that Green had rented out the house and collected the rents since said conveyance.

We think the evidence justified the finding of the jury and the court correctly overruled the motion for a new trial, hence - the judgment is *affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1440

TROY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TERO TEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; TERO TEK INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Corporate Headquarters,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-02752-JKB)

Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, and affirmed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Troy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Rothschild, ANDERSON, 

COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Troy Williams appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to the defendant and its subsequent 

order denying his motion to reopen.∗ We dismiss the appeal of 

the order granting summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal from that order was not timely 

filed. We affirm the denial of Williams’ motion to reopen.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s summary judgment order was 

entered on the docket on February 27, 2012. The notice of 

appeal was filed on April 1, 2013. Because Williams failed to 

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or

reopening of the appeal period we dismiss the appeal to the 

 ∗ Williams’ informal brief states that he also appeals the 

district court’s marginal order entered April 3, 2013, denying 

his motion for reconsideration. Williams did not file a notice 

of appeal of this order and it is therefore not properly before 

this court.
3

extent it challenges the district court’s summary judgment 

order.

Although Williams timely appealed the denial of his 

motion to reopen, we find no abuse of discretion. MLC Auto., 

LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART
Case 2:15-mj-01802-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01802-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01802-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned in connection with this
Annual Report of Quality Distribution, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigneds knowledge:

(1) 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
operation of the company.

Date: March 12, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Gary R. Enzor                    
|GARY R. ENZOR                        
|PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Date: March 12, 2010



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen R. Attwood                           
|STEPHEN R. ATTWOOD                               
|SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Quality Distribution, Inc. and will be retained by Quality Distribution, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Patty YIP, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-16837.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 18, 2005.*

Decided March 22, 2005.

Robert P. Capistrano, Timothy Roscoe Carter, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*825Nancy M. Lisewski, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: NOONAN, THOMAS and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yip appeals a district court order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. She contends on appeal that the Commissioner erred in relying only upon the Social Security Administration’s Medical-Vocational Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to determine that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy which she is capable of performing. We affirm the district court.

The district court held that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly relied on the Guidelines and Social Security Ruling 85-15, “Capability To Do Other Work — The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating Solely Nonexertional Impairments,” to deny Yip benefits. SSR 85-15 provides that where a claimant’s only impairment is mental and she cannot meet the mental demands of her past work, the ALJ should first consider her occupational base in light of her mental impairment, age, education, and previous work experience. *Id.*If the claimant has, as Yip does, a broad occupational base, the ALJ should then consider whether she can “understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions, ... respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations, and ... deal with changes in a routine work setting.” *Id.*Because Yip can perform such tasks, the ALJ found that her broad occupational base was not severely constrained by her mental impairment and, therefore, that she was not disabled under the Guidelines.

The Guidelines and SSR 85-15 “completely and accurately describe[ ][Yip]’s abilities and limitations.” *Tackett,*180 F.3d at 1103 (citing *Heckler v. Campbell,*461 U.S. 458, 470, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 76 L.Ed.2d 66 (1983)). The ALJ thus properly applied the Guidelines to Yip’s claim.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21



                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE UNIMARK GROUP, INC.


<TABLE>
<S>     <C>
1.       Unimark Foods, Inc., a Texas corporation

2.       Unimark International, Inc., a Texas corporation

3.       Industrias Citricolas de Montemorelos, S.A. de C.V., a company
         organized under the laws of Mexico

4.       Grupo Industrial Santa Engracia, S.A. de C.V., a company organized
         under the laws of Mexico

5.       Les Produits Deli-Bon Inc., a Canadian corporation

6.       Simply Fresh Fruit, Inc., a California corporation

7.       Agromark, S.A. de C.V., a company organized under the laws of Mexico

8.       Gisalamo, S.A. de C.V., a company organized under the laws of Mexico

9.       Unimark Foods Europe Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the
         United Kingdom
</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SMITHMARCO, P.C.

20 South Clark Street, Suite 2120

Chicago, IL 60603

TELEPHONE (312) 546-6539

David M. Marco

Attorney for JESUS R. LOPEZ, JR.

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202

Telephone (602) 382-6562

Jacob C. Jones/029971

Attorney for EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PHOENIX DIVISION

JESUS R. LOPEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, 

INC., 

Defendant.

Case No.: CV-15-2316-PHX-DLR

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT

By agreement, the parties to the above-captioned action, by and through their 

respective attorneys, state as follows:

1. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

parties hereby stipulate and agree that the above-captioned action should be 

dismissed.

Case 2:15-cv-02316-DLR Document 22 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2. The parties, by agreement, respectfully request that this case be dismissed with 

prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees to any party, all costs having 

been paid and all matters in controversy for which this action was brought 

having been fully settled, compromised and adjourned.

Date: July 8, 2016

For Plaintiff,

Jesus Lopez, Jr.

 /s David M. Marco

SMITHMARCO, P.C.

20 South Clark Street, Suite 2120

Chicago, IL 60603

Telephone: (312) 546-6539

Facsimile: (888) 418-1277

E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

For Defendant, 

Equifax Information Services, LLC

 /s with consent Jacob C. Jones

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

One Arizona Center 

400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202

Telephone: (602) 382-6562

Facsimile: (602) 382-6070 

E-mail: jcjones@swlaw.com

Case 2:15-cv-02316-DLR Document 22 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2659 

To extend the temporary increase in payments under the medicare program 

for home health services furnished in a rural area. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2004 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. BOND, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. 

THOMAS, Mr. CONRAD, and Mr. BURNS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary increase in payments under the 

medicare program for home health services furnished 

in a rural area. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Rural Home 

5 Health Services Improvement Act of 2004’’. 
2 

•S 2659 IS 

1 SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY MEDICARE 

2 PAYMENT INCREASE FOR HOME HEALTH 

3 SERVICES FURNISHED IN A RURAL AREA. 

4 Section 421 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Im5 provement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 

6 1395fff note) is amended— 

7 (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘ONE8 YEAR’’ and inserting ‘‘TEMPORARY’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘2005’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘2007’’. 

Æ
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 4 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 5 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 6 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 7 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 8 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 9 of 10
Case 4:15-cv-00471-CKJ Document 1 Filed 10/05/15 Page 10 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Andra Rashard Butler, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No.: CR15-08202-001-PCT-DMF 

ORDER

The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's preliminary hearing 

was waived and the detention hearing was submitted for decision on the record before the 

Court. The Court finds probable cause to believe the defendant violated the terms of his 

supervised probation as alleged in the Petition and the defendant will be held to answer in 

further proceedings on the Petition. 

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant is detained as flight risk and danger pending 

further revocation proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), the defendant has failed to 

show by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger. 

 Dated this 1st day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cr-08202-DMF Document 34 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jermaine Walker","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jwalke32\/","title":"Deep Space Station 43","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2JRiw4R2zF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/canberra-dss-43-55\/\">Deep Space Station 43<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/canberra-dss-43-55\/embed\/#?secret=2JRiw4R2zF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Deep Space Station 43” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2JRiw4R2zF\" 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\/2023\/08\/canberra-dss-43-55.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}