alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DECATUR FINANCIAL, INC.
                              520 North 13th Street
                                  P.O. Box 988
                             Decatur, Indiana 46733

               PROXY SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The undersigned hereby appoints _____________ and ___________, and each of them,
proxies of the undersigned, with full power of substitution and re-substitution,
to represent and vote all shares of common stock of Decatur Financial, Inc.
("Decatur Financial") which the undersigned would be entitled to vote at the
Special Meeting of Shareholders of Decatur Financial to be held at the
_____________ located at _______________, Decatur, Indiana 46733, on __________,
______ __, 2000, at _:__ p.m. local time, and at any adjournment thereof, with
all of the powers the undersigned would possess if personally present, as set
forth below.

The Board of Directors of Decatur Financial recommends a vote FOR approval of
the Agreement of Reorganization and Merger dated January 20, 2000, by and
between First Merchants Corporation ("First Merchants") and Decatur Financial
pursuant to which Decatur Financial will merge with and into First Merchants,
and Decatur Bank & Trust Company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of First
Merchants.

          1.   Approval of the Agreement of Reorganization and Merger:

               ________ FOR         _______ AGAINST            ________ ABSTAIN

          2.   In their discretion, on such other matters as may properly be
               presented at the Special Meeting.

THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED AS DIRECTED, BUT IF NOT OTHERWISE DIRECTED, THIS PROXY
WILL BE VOTED FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT OF REORGANIZATION AND MERGER. ON ANY
OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY PROPERLY BE PRESENTED AT THE SPECIAL MEETING, THIS PROXY
WILL BE VOTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF DECATUR FINANCIAL.

PLEASE COMPLETE, SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THIS PROXY PROMPTLY.

Dated: ______________, 2000.

                                ------------------------------------------
                                (SIGNATURE OF SHAREHOLDER)


                                ------------------------------------------
                                (SIGNATURE OF SHAREHOLDER)

PLEASE SIGN EXACTLY AS YOUR NAME APPEARS ON YOUR STOCK CERTIFICATE. JOINT OWNERS
SHOULD EACH SIGN PERSONALLY. TRUSTEES AND OTHERS SIGNING IN A REPRESENTATIVE
CAPACITY SHOULD INDICATE THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THEY SIGN.

                                    Ex. 99-1
EXHIBIT 23.3





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-208736 and 333-218554) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-213035) on Form S-3 of Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2019, with respect to the balance sheets of Alaska Tanker Company, LLC as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, and the related statements of comprehensive income, members’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes, which report appears in the December 31, 2018 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. expected to be dated March 29, 2019.





/s/KPMG LLP


Portland, Oregon


March 27, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001013559
<NAME>                        COAST HOTELS AND CASINOS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         28,280
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                   777
<INVENTORY>                                    4,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               54,067
<PP&E>                                         533,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 472,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          59,922
<BONDS>                                        274,974
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   472,847
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               194,113
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               45,390
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                27,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9,426
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            17,662
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   17,662
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>
#### NIX v. ELLIS COUNTY et al.

No. 1733.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 19, 1936.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1936.

W. Goodwin Sweatt, J. L. Gammon, and J. T. Spencer, all of Waxahachie, for appellant.

Archie D. Gray, of Houston, and For-rester Hancock, of Waxahachie, for ap-pellees.

*213ALEXANDER, Justice.

During the year 1931 and continuously since that time R. E. Nix owned a block of land in the city of Waxahachie fronting 'on Madison street on the north and on Elm street on the east. During said year the state highway department of Texas, ih the building of one of its state highways, with some financial aid from Ellis county and the city of Waxahachie, constructed a viaduct along Elm street in front of Nix’s property in such manner as to partly obstruct the. means of ingress and egress to and from sáid’property. On May 22, 1933, Nix brought this suit against Ellis county and the city of Waxahachie to recover the damages occasioned to his property by reason of the construction of said viaduct. Among other things, the defendants plead the two years’ statute of limitation. The case was submitted to the jury on special issues, in response to which the jury found that neither the county of Ellis nor the city of Waxahachie employed or procured the state highway department of. Texas to construct the viaduct in question; that plaintiff’s property did not suffer any depreciation in its reasonable market value by reason of the construction of the viaduct, and that the portion of the viaduct adjacent to plaintiff’s property was substantially constructed prior to May 22, 1931. Upon these findings, judgment was entered for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed.

The suit was not- filed until May 22, 1933, and if the viaduct adjacent to plaintiff’s property was substantially constructed prior- to May 22, 1931, as found by the jury, appellant’s cause of action for the damages occasioned by reason of the obstructing of the entrance to his property was barred by the two years’ statute of limitation, and the court properly entered judgment for appellees. 16 Tex.Jur. 969, § 295.; 28 Tex.Jur. 149, § 66;, Lyles v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., 73 Tex. 95, 11 S.W. 782. Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding on this issue. The only testimony’ introduced pertinent to the issue was that of the resident engineer of the state highway department in charge of the construction of the viaduct in question. He testified that the work was begun on the job February 12, 1931, and the viaduct finally completed December 4, 1931; that the part of the viaduct in front of appellant’s property which was described as being “the filling to the approach” was completed by May 1, 1931. No evidence was offered tending to contradict the testimony of -this witness. This evidence was sufficient to support the finding of the jury.

Since under this finding, appellant’s cause of action was barred by limitation and he was not entitled to recover, it is not necessary for us to discuss other assignments not pertinent to this issue.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### MIDWAY LIQUOR CO., Inc., v. STATE.

No. 12883.

*Court*of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

March 2, 1940.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1940.

*910Andrew Priest, of Dallas, and Lasseter, Simpson, Spruiell & Lowry, of Tyler, for appellant.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., W. P. ' Watts, Fred C. Chandler, and Geo. W. Bar-cus, Assts. Atty. Gen., and E. G. Moseley, Harold McCracken, and David M. Wein-stein, Assts. Dist. Atty., all of Dallas, for appellee.

BOND, Chief Justice.

This record discloses an analogous situation to that in the case of Goodie-Goodie Sandwich, Inc. v. State of Texas, 138 S.W.2d 906, this day decided by this Court. Appellant’s place of business is located adjacent to that of the Goodie-Goodie Corporation, and, it too, has been enjoined from selling,- possessing for the purpose of sale, bartering or exchanging prohibited intoxicating liquors at its place of business. The conclusion is reached in the above cited case that, the territory where appellant’s place of business is located, is within Precinct No. 7- of Dallas County, where local option is legally effective; therefore, on the strength of our holding, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23(d)**[PRATOR BETT, L.L.C. LETTERHEAD]****CONSENT OF PRATOR BETT, L.L.C.**As oil and gas consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our name and our report dated November1, 2005 in this Form 10-K/A, incorporated by reference into Peoples Energy Corporation’s previouslyfiled Registration Statement File Nos. 333-84594 and 333-70702 on Form S-3, and 2-82760, 33-6369,033-63193, 333-62070, 333-113204, 333-116192, and 333-17701 on Form S-8.      Prator Bett, L.L.C.
# C_2022255EN.01000101.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10698 – MITSUI / INDOMOBIL / PTL / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 255/01)

On 17 June 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10698. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10698. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Rosa Lee Rodriguez, as next

friend of Flora s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 4, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00049

- CV

MORNINGSIDE MINISTRIES d/b/a Morningside Ministries at the Manor and the

Morningside Ministries Foundation, Inc.,

Appellant

v.

Rosa Lee RODRIGUEZ , as next friend of Flora Mendez,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 07530

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Pres iding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion to Abate Appeal to Finalize Settlement is GRANTED. The

appeal is abated for 30 days.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### Adams, Kevin (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject: Dear Mr. Adams, Jon Duracinski <Jon.Duracinski@uui-alaska.com> Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:03 PM Adams, Kevin (OST) EAS Tatitlek comment

As vice president ofoperations and engineering for United Utilities, Inc. (UUI), I can speak first hand to the quality of service provided by Reeve Air Alaska. UUI and affiliated companies have used Reeve Air Alaska in support ofour rural telephone, cellular and internet services in Tatitlek and throughoutAlaska. At UUI, we place a high value on the safety and reliability ofthe air carriers we use. Isupport Reeve AirAlaska's proposal to provide essential air service to Tatitlek, Alaska. Sincerely, Jon Duracinski VP operations and engineering 

### 907.273.5280

1 1.,...**~** 

### ""!") l..
COMMISSIONER DOUG GOEHRING

September 13, 2012 James B. Martin Administrator US EPA, Region 8 NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE STATE CAPITOL 600 E. BOULEVARDAVE. -DEPT.602 BISMARCK, ND 58505-0020 ., . 

## .,.,.**'·,L-~-•./\** -.L""'v--

ndda@nd.gov www.agdepactment.com

1595 W.Joop Street Denver, C 80202-1129 Dear Regi nal Administrator Martin, The North bakotaDepartment ofAgriculture (NDDA) herebyrequest delegated authqrityfrom the

### Unitedt~ates Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce e-Risk Management Program ( P) requirements for agricultural anhydrous armnonia faci ities under Section 112(r) ofthe Cle Air Act (CAA). Section II (1) ofthe CAA establishes a framework for formal delegati n ofRMP enforcement authority t States when a State's program for implementing and enfor ing an accident prevention rogram is at least as stringent as the federal program. Ace rding to the February 1998 doc ent, RiskManagement Programs under CleanAirActSec 'on 112(r) Guidancefor g Agencies, EPA can approve a State's request for delega on when: A. The authorities in the State program are adequate to ens e compliance by all sources within the State, B. The State demonstrates that it has adequate authority an adequate resources to implement the program, and C. The State's schedule for implementing the program iss fficiently expeditious. Enclosed ith this letter please find supporting information asserting y position that the NDDA has the nee ssary authority and resources to meet all three ofthe abov criteria. Supporting informatio includes: A. Summary ofNorth Dakota's anhydrous armnonia regul tory authority and general components ofa proposed RMP enforcement program B. Copy ofNorth Dakota Century Code Chapter 19-20.2 C. Copy ofNorthDakota Century Code Chapter 19-20.3 D. Letter from the NorthDakota Attorney General asserti authority ofthe Agriculture Commissionerto enforce RMP provisions fthe CAA E. Proposed memo ofunderstanding (MOU) between EP and the NDDA F. Proposed RMP enforcementresponse policy G. Proposed administrative rule (N.D.A.C. 7-12-03)

FAX 701-328-4567 Equal Opportunity in Employment and Services 701-328-2231 800-242-7535

### I Page 2

Please notd that the Department intends to undertake rule-making to 4 CFRPart 68 by reference. 

# lwe intend to begin rule-making immediately and_req.l!\<§t

_ J.EPArevie.wthis delegation ·oncurn:nt!y_With the rule-making process. A copy ofthe p posed administrative rule is encl sed with this package. I value the egulatory partnership that my office has already built with PA Region 8 to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The uccesses that we have seen witht e FIFRA program demonstrate that we can achieve high le els ofcompliance through co laboration and playing to each other's strengths. I am confi entthat we can achieve similar sue esses with the RMP provisions ofthe CAA. Please con concerns. 

# 17;/ /- '**~L_,_**

# .... , Doug Goe ing

# ~ Agricultur, Commissioner
February 12, 2015 Mr. Scott Faulk U.S. Department ofTransportation EAS 

### & DomesticAnalysis Division
Re: Comments on Order2014-12-2 EAS at lmperiai/EI Centro Greetings, CITY COUNCIL Geoff Dale- Mayor Mark Gran- Mayor Pro-Tem Rick Breland -councilMember Doug cox- Council Member

, r,, Betty Sampson- Council Member ',_._ CITY CLERK Debrajackson CITY TREASURER

Stacycox

Thank you forthe opportunityto comment on the aircarrier proposals received forthe EAS at lmperiai/EI Centro. The City of Imperial considers Essential Air Service a critical piece ofinfrastructure forourcommunity from several perspectives including public safety, economic opportunity and regional communication support. All ofthese issues are improved and enhanced by the benefit of EAS to our region. The City wishes to thankyou forthe waiver granted recently that allowed SeaPort Airlines to continue to serve ourcommunity and provided ourcitizenry with the opportunityto continue air carrier service to two urban airports. Having reviewed both proposals submitted forthe next period of EAS, the City of Imperial supports continuing service with SeaPort Airlines. SeaPort has become agood community partnerand is pursuing a major marketing push. Local agencies, businesses and residents are gaining awareness oftheirexisting services that would be extended with the latest proposal. SeaPort's proposal offers the opportunityforsame day connections from other areas ofsouthern California to attend meetings and functions in our region and have the convenience of returning home in the same day. This service isjust beginning to be realized by public agencies and businesses and it is not offered in the Great Lakes proposal. SeaPort offers more flighttimes per day that increases the connections for our region and has some interline agreements with additional agreements in process. Forthese reasons and others, the City Council of Imperial took action on February 4, 2015 to supportthe proposal submitted by SeaPort Airlines in the next round of EAS for the lmperiai/EI Centro region.
Thank you,



# b--~~ City Manager

420 SOUTH IMPERIAL AVENUE • IMPERIAL, CA 92251 • TEL (760) 355-4371 • FAX {760) 355-4718 • WWW.C!TYOFIMPER!AL.ORG
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00521-CR

Magdalena Ortiz

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 09CR4251-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 27, 2015
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 19, 2013

NO. 03-13-00412-CR

Kenneth Neil Schlanker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the appeal is

dismissed in accordance with the opinion of this Court; and it appearing that the appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision 

be certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 31.1



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 Quarterly Report of Park Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2005, (the Report), I, David A. Remijas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David A. RemijasDavid A. RemijasPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 18, 2005




See accompanying
notes to consolidated financial statements.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2857 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2857

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 4, 2016

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To facilitate the addition of park administration at the Coltsville 
           National Historical Park, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK DONATION 
              SITE.

    Section 3032(b) of Public Law 113-291 (16 U.S.C. 410qqq) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``East Armory'' and 
        inserting ``Colt Armory Complex''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Additional administrative conditions.--No non-Federal 
        property may be included in the park without the written 
        consent of the owner. The establishment of the park or the 
        management of the park shall not be construed to create buffer 
        zones outside of the park. That activities or uses can be seen, 
        heard or detected from areas within the park shall not 
        preclude, limit, control, regulate, or determine the conduct or 
        management of activities or uses outside of the park.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 22, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```