alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles W. Oldenberg *vs.*Robert Devine, impleaded, etc.

May 1, 1889.

Judgment Entered by Clerk — Validity—Appeal.—The validity of a judgment entered by the clerk of the district court without any order of the court therefor, and without the express authority of the statute, will not be considered upon an appeal from the judgment, no remedy having been sought in that court.

Appeal by defendant Devine from a judgment of the district court for Scott county, entered against defendant and the sureties on his appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace, before whom the action was first -brought. The justice had rendered judgment against the defendant for $11.50 damages and $15.41 costs; the defendant appealed on law and-faets, and the judgment in the district court recites, “this action being upon the calendar for trial at the June, 1888, general term of this court, and upon the call thereof it was stipulated in open court that the said action should be tried together with the case of Chas. W. Oldenberg against Robert Devine *et al.,*and that the verdict therein should be the verdict in the above-entitled action; and whereas judgment has been ordered for the plaintiff in that action” — and proceeds to affirm in all things the judgment of the justice, and to adjudge a recovery of $11.50 damages and $30.25 costs against defendant and his sureties. The action was for trespass to realty, and the defence that the *locus in quo*was a highway. The record on this appeal does not show, otherwise than by the recital in the judgment, the terms of the stipulation or the proceedings in the other action.

*410
      *Willis, Nelson & Speel,*for appellant.

*R. A. é F. G. Irwin,*for respondent.

Dickinson, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the district court in a cause brought to that court by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The appellant contends that the judgment of the district court should be vacated, because it was entered by the clerk without any other authority than a written stipulation of the parties, no order of the court therefor having been made; and also because the record does not show that, even under the terms of the stipulation, the judgment was authorized. The authority of the judge of the district court having never been exercised-, either in respect to the entry of the judgment nor subsequently upon motion to set it aside or to rectify it, the question here presented will not be considered upon an appeal from the judgment. *Eaton*v. *Caldwell,*3 Minn. 80, (134;) *Piper*v. *Johnston,*12 Minn. 27, (60, 65;) *County of Hennepin*v. *Jones,*18 Minn. 182, (199;) *Coles*v. *Berryhill,*37 Minn. 56, (33 N. W. Rep. 213.) No error being shown which we can consider, the judgment is affirmed.
#### Peter Diadamo *v.*Jack Valois

*James J. Maher,*in support of the motion.

Submitted January 8

decided January 14, 1975

The defendant’s “Motion to Compel Certification” of the transcript in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion in the event the transcript has not been certified on or before March 3, 1975.
#### Shirley Margel, Respondent, v. Harold S. Margel, Appellant.

In an action for a judicial separation, the defendant husband appeals: (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 29, 1964, as granted $125 per week for temporary alimony to the plaintiff wife; and (2) from so much of an order of said court, made June 23, 1964 upon rearguement, as adhered to .the original decision with respect to such alimony. Appeal from order of April 29, 1964 dismissed, without costs; such order was superseded by the later order granting the defendant’s motion for reargument. Order of June 23, 1964 modified on the facts by amending its decretal paragraph so as to -provide that the plaintiff's motion for temporary alimony is referred to the .trial court for its determination upon the basis of the proof adduced upon the trial. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. On ¡the record before us, there appears no sufficient likelihood of plaintiff’s success, nor sufficient need on her part or adequate means on the defendant’s part, to justify the award of temporary alimony here made. If warranted by the proof adduced upon the trial, however, the trial court may make an appropriate allowance *nunc pro tuna*as of the return day of the original motion for alimony *pendente lite (Hirschberg*v. *Hirschberg,*7 A D 2d 869). The decision upon this appeal is without prejudice to any such determination. Beldóek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF UST CORP.(*)

                                     USTrust
                           United States Trust Company
                              UST Bank/Connecticut
                            JSA Financial Corporation
                           UST Leasing Corporation(**)
                            UST Securities Corp.(**)
                             UST Capital Corp.(***)

    (*) Other than UST  Bank/Connecticut  which is a Connecticut  trust company,
        each  of  the  above  subsidiaries  of  UST  Corp.  is  a  Massachusetts
        Corporation  or  trust  company  and  each of the  above  entities  does
        business only under its  corporate  name.  The  foregoing  list does not
        include the names of inactive  subsidiaries or the names of subsidiaries
        of banking  entities  which  subsidiaries  have been  organized  to hold
        foreclosed  property,  or other  assets  held in  satisfaction  of debts
        previously contracted by the applicable banking entity.

   (**) Wholly-owned by USTrust

  (***) Wholly-owned by United States Trust Company
#### 1252.239-80 Audit Record Retention for Cloud Service Providers.

As prescribed in 1239.7204(e), insert the following clause:

# Audit Record Retention for Cloud Service Providers (NOV 2022)

(a) The Contractor shall support a system in accordance with the requirement for Federal agencies to manage their electronic records in accordance with 36 CFR 1236.20 and 1236.22, including but not limited to capabilities such as those identified in DoD STD-5015.2 V3, Electronic Records Management Software Applications Design Criteria Standard, NARA Bulletin 2008-05, July 31, 2008, Guidance concerning the use of email archiving applications to store email, and NARA Bulletin 2010-05 September 08, 2010, Guidance on Managing Records in Cloud Computing Environments.

(b) The Contractor shall maintain records to retain functionality and integrity throughout the records' full lifecycle including—

(1) Maintenance of links between records and metadata; and

(2) Categorization of records to manage retention and disposal, either through transfer of permanent records to NARA or deletion of temporary records in accordance with NARA approved retention schedules.

(End of clause)
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                PROVIDENT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF PROVIDENT


The following table sets forth Provident's active subsidiaries as of the date of
this report.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        State of
                                                      Jurisdiction
                                                      Under the Laws
                                                        of which
                                                        Organized
                                                        ---------
<S>                                                   <C>
The Provident Bank                                       Ohio
 PFGI Capital Corporation                                Maryland
 Information Leasing Corporation                         Ohio
  Provident Auto Leasing Company - Titling Trust         Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental Company LLC 1998-1               Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental Company LLC 1998-2               Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 1999-1                       Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2000-1                       Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2000-2                       Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2001-1                       Delaware
  Provident Lease Receivables Company LLC                Delaware
 Provident Recap I, LLC                                  Ohio
 Milestone Security Partners, LLC                        Ohio
 AHT Service Corporation                                 California
 PB Realty Inc.                                          Ohio
  BB-BCH, LLC                                            Ohio
 PCFS Mortgage Resources, LLC                            Ohio
 Procurement Alternatives Corporation                    Ohio
 Capstone Realty Advisors, LLC                           Ohio
 Red Mortgage Capital, Inc.                              Ohio
 Red Capital Markets, Inc.                               Ohio
  Provident Insurance Agency, Inc.                       Ohio
 Provident Community Development Company, LLC            Ohio
 Red Capital Advisors, LLC                               Ohio
 Red Fund I Series A, LLC                                Delaware
 RFI Series A Class 1, LLC                               Ohio
 RFI Series A Class 2, LLC                               Delaware
 Provident Bank Home Equity Loan Trust 1996-1            New York
 Provident Bank Home Equity Loan Trust 1996-2            New York
 Meadow Ridge Partners LLC                               Ohio
Provident Investment Advisors, Inc.                      Ohio
Red Fund I Series B, LLC                                 Delaware
RFI Series B Class 1, LLC                                Ohio
RFI Series B Class 2, LLC                                Delaware
</TABLE>
Exhibit
32








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to, and as required by, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Kingstone
Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2018fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








Date: November 8,
2018
By:
/s/ Barry B.
GoldsteinBarry B.
GoldsteinChief Executive
Officer


By:
/s/ Victor
BrodskyVictor
BrodskyChief Financial
Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2093

DEBORAH M. MELTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98-

2598-MJG)

Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborah M. Melton, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United

States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Deborah M. Melton appeals the district court’s order granting

Appellee’s motion for summary judgment in Melton’s civil action in

which she alleged claims of discrimination in her employment. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Melton v. Shalala, No. CA-98-2598-MJG (D.

Md. June 20, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.109 Referring a claim to the U.S. Attorney. ( a ) All cases that require forwarding to the DoJ must be routed through the Chief, MCRP. The MCR authority ensures that personnel review all claims for possible referral not later than two years after the date of the incident for tort based cases.
( b ) The United States or the injured party on behalf of the United States must file suit within 3 years after an action accrues. This is usually 3 years after the initial treatment is provided in a federal medical facility or after the initial payment is made by Tricare, whichever is first.
[81 FR 83699, Nov. 22, 2016]
|   | · | The      Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;    and                      |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | · | The      information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |

| Date:  February      29, 2008 | /s/ James H.      Miller                                   James      H. MillerPresidentPPL      Energy Supply, LLC |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### § 1636.2 The claim of conscientious objection.

A claim to classification in Class 1-A-0 or Class 1-0, must be made by the registrant in writing. Claims and documents in support of claims may only be submitted after the registrant has received an order to report for induction or after the Director has made a specific request for submission of such documents. All claims or documents in support of claims received prior to a registrant being ordered to report for induction or prior to the Director's specific request for such documentation will be returned to the registrant and no file or record of such submission will be established.
Fiscal Year 2013 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - MARYLAND

FY 2013 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

2400030 Allegany County Public Schools 2,695,420

2400060 Anne Arundel County Public Schools 10,227,428

2400090 Baltimore City Public Schools 52,113,378

2400120 Baltimore County Public Schools 22,754,753

2400150 Calvert County Public Schools 1,504,209

2400180 Caroline County Public Schools 1,393,127

2400210 Carroll County Public Schools 2,066,625

2400240 Cecil County Public Schools 2,809,376

2400270 Charles County Public Schools 3,157,695

2400300 Dorchester County Public Schools 1,777,816

2400330 Frederick County Public Schools 4,006,232

2400360 Garrett County Public Schools 1,274,294

2400390 Harford County Public Schools 5,652,236

2400420 Howard County Public Schools 4,442,286

2400450 Kent County Public Schools 571,774

2400480 Montgomery County Public Schools 22,588,606

2400510 Prince George's County Public Schools 25,148,880

2400540 Queen Annes County Public Schools 875,761

2400570 Somerset County Public Schools 1,335,649

2400600 St. Marys County Public Schools 2,495,103

2400630 Talbot County Public Schools 938,216

2400660 Washington County Public Schools 5,109,848

2400690 Wicomico County Public Schools 4,339,537

2400720 Worcester County Public Schools 1,757,565

2499999 PART D SUBPART 2 652,606

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2013 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts.
#### 1333.206 Initiation of a claim.

Contracting officers shall promptly notify Procurement Counsel and seek legal advice upon receiving a contractor claim.
Fiscal Year 2017 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - RHODE ISLAND

FY 2017 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4400030 Barrington School District 97,913

4400065 Bristol-Warren Regional School District 665,345

4400090 Burrillville School District 507,420

4400120 Central Falls School District 3,122,305

4400150 Chariho Regional School District 420,959

4400210 Coventry School District 661,506

4400240 Cranston School District 3,077,259

4400270 Cumberland School District 779,221

4400300 East Greenwich School District 173,285

4400330 East Providence School District 1,688,177

4400360 Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District 143,305

4400390 Foster Elementary School District 89,465

4400420 Foster-Glocester Regional School District 116,435

4400450 Glocester Elementary School District 107,479

4400510 Jamestown School District 145,447

4400540 Johnston School District 906,134

4400570 Lincoln School District 618,003

4400600 Little Compton School District 47,342

4400630 Middletown School District 354,424

4400660 Narragansett School District 197,044

4400690 New Shoreham School District 2,250

4400720 Newport School District 1,043,800

4400750 North Kingstown School District 592,413

4400780 North Providence School District 890,607

4400810 North Smithfield School District 168,895

4400840 Pawtucket School District 5,621,676

4400870 Portsmouth School District 264,859

4400900 Providence School District 21,507,744

4400960 Scituate School District 286,610

4400990 Smithfield School District 240,548

4401020 South Kingstown School District 417,120

4401050 Tiverton School District 207,281

4401110 Warwick School District 1,737,299

4401140 West Warwick School District 1,122,219

4401170 Westerly School District 552,748

4401200 Woonsocket School District 4,676,154

4499999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 7 percent of their allocations for school improvement. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
#### 1327.201 Patent and copyright infringement liability.
<PAGE>
                                                  Exhibit 10(n)


         Executive Compensation Incentive Award Program


	The Company's Executive Compensation Incentive Award 
Program is designed to promote the success of the Company by 
providing a method whereby officers may be awarded additional 
remuneration based on specific Company objectives and the 
Company's overall return on equity.  The program has two 
separate components.  A short-term incentive plan makes cash 
awards to eligible employees based on the achievement of 
independent financial, operational and strategic goals 
established annually by the Company's Board of Directors, as 
well as individual goals for officers who are not members of 
the Company's Corporate Leadership Committee (CLC).  A long-
term incentive plan grants restricted Company stock to eligible 
employees based on the achievement of other goals established 
by the Board.
	Awards under the program are made by the Management 
Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of 
Directors, except that cash awards are made by CLC in the case 
of non-CLC members.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 20-0454 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v . 

GEORGE CARLON, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER GRANTING 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE APPELLANT'S 

INITIAL BRIEF 

FILED 

NOV 1 6 2021 

Bowen Cireenvvood 

Court 

State ot Montana

At the request of Defendant / Appellant, and no objection being interposed by 

the State, this Court hereby extends the filing date of Defendant's / Appellant's Initial 

Brief to Wednesday, November 17, 2021. 

So ordered this \ day of k) 

Montana Supreme Court 

cc: Attorney General 

Defendant / Appellant c/o Counsel 

11/16/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0454
Worksheet Title: HCl Emission Test Results Template Using Method 321

Who Should Complete this Spreadsheet?Company Name:Facility Name: TehachapiAddress: 13578 Tehachapi BlvdCity: TehachapiState: CAKiln ID:Kiln Type: PH/PCIn-line Raw Mill:Control Device Configuration: 

Parameter

Sample #1

Sample #2

Sample #3

Test AverageUnits

Units Other 

DescriptionTest Method Used Test Location 

Select appropriate unit from list. If other is selected please describe units in column H at right. Enter the name of the Test Method used.

Indicate whether the test occurred upstream or downstream of a control device(s); list the controdevice(s)

Sample Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 3/25/2010 3/27/2010 3/27/2010HCl Concentration - as measured - dry basis 2.83 2.31 0.88 ppmvd 

Oxygen Concentration - dry basis 13.38 11.77 11.97 %

CO2 Concentration - dry basis 13.96 16.47 15.84 %

HCl Concentration - corrected to 7% oxygen 5.24 3.52 1.36 3.37 ppmvd @ 7% O2 Method 321 Downstream; Baghouse 

Exhaust Stream %Moisture 0.0768 0.0857 0.0765 % Exhaust Flowrate 168536 177917 166377 dscfm Exhaust Temperature 157.2 165.5 160.4 F Sample Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 3/25/2010 3/25/2010

HCl Concentration - as measured - dry basis 0.91 0.62 ppmvd 

Oxygen Concentration - dry basis 12.62 13.28 %

CO2 Concentration - dry basis 15.06 13.96 %HCl Concentration - corrected to 7% oxygen 1.53 1.13 1.33 ppmvd @ 7% O2 Method 321 Downstream; Baghouse 

Exhaust Stream %Moisture 0.0264 0.0311 % Exhaust Flowrate 178441 167033 dscfm Exhaust Temperature 278.5 277.4 F Notes:

BaghouseEnter HCl concentration value in dry parts per million volume (ppmvd). If the test results are below detection limit, please note the detection limit in brackets (e.g., [< 0.010]). 

Peach shaded cells indicate areas where the user will enter a responseFTIR monitor and process problems.Only two (2) runs were completed during Raw Mill Off condition due to numerous

YES

Facilities that use Method 321 to test for HClLehigh Southwest Cement Company

Enclosure 5c‐‐ERT Spreadsheet