alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                           Exhibit (10)(xiv)(a)



                       BORDEN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PARTNERS
                              1997 INCENTIVE PLAN


<TABLE>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                      <C>
Participation            All Associates
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Measurement    EVA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Award             For key Associates, Target Award is based on market average, where market data indicates an
                         incentive award as part of total compensation

                         For all other Associates, Target Award is:
                              15% of salary for managers
                              10% of salary for supervisors and function experts
                               5% of salary for support professionals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Weight            100% Financial, modified by Performance vs. Individual Performance Objectives (IPOs)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award Amount             Infinite +
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award Allocation         Determined by matrix
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banking                  Award Amount in excess of 100% Target Award is banked
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award Payment            Up to Target Award plus 1/3 of bank;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 13-1471

___________________________ Robert Lee Bailey, lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant , v. Scott P. Fisher, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee .

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________ Submitted: July 16, 2013 Filed: July 22, 2013 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Robert Bailey appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he claimed that he was twice wrongfully subjected

1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and r ecommendations of the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.to prison discipline in the form of, inte r alia, loss of good time credits. Upon careful de novo review, see Mitchell v. U. S. Parole Comm’n , 538 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (dismissal of § 2241 petition is reviewed de novo), we find no basis for reversal. See Superintendent v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 454-55 (1985) (when prison disciplinary hearing results in lo ss of good time credits, inmate must receive (1) advance notice of charges; (2) opportunity --consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals--to call witnesses and to present documentary evidence; and (3) factfinder’s written statement of eviden ce relied upon and reasons for disciplinary decision; due process is satisfied if “s ome evidence” supports disciplinary decision to revoke good time credits). Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Bailey’s pending motion as moot.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.1

          Summary of the Company's Bonus Plans under which some of the
          executive officers of the Company and certain other personnel of the
          subsidiaries are eligible to receive a bonus each year.
     42

<PAGE>

1999 BRENTON BANKS, INC. BONUS PLANS

For 1999, the Company (Brenton Banks, Inc. and Subsidiaries) has bonus plans
that cover executive officers, line of business managers, senior managers,
market managers, and other key personnel.  The following chart summarizes the
main features of these bonus plans:

Bonus potential (as percent of base pay):
     Chief Executive Officer                   60.00%
     Other Executive Officers                  45.00%        to       50.00%
     Line of business managers                 40.00%
     Market managers                           30.00%        to       40.00%
     Senior managers and other key personnel   10.00%        to       37.50%

Bonus threshold for executive officers:
     Bonus achievement is tied to a consolidated earnings threshold of
     $19,500,000 whereby no bonus will be paid if this earnings threshold is
     not achieved.  For executive officers 50% to 100% of bonus is tied to
     consolidated net income.  The same tiered earnings bonus matrix applies
     to all employees who have a portion of their bonus tied to consolidated
     net income.  The tiered bonus matrix, for that portion of the bonus tied
     to net income, provides for no bonus unless net income exceeds
     $19,500,000 and provides for 100% of bonus to be earned when net income
     exceeds $22,500,000.

Bonus criteria:
     Bonus amounts are paid for achievement of certain pre-established
     financial and personal goals, the most significant of which are as
     follows:
          Consolidated net income
          Subsidiary or line of business controllable net income
          Sales goals
          Growth in loans
          Growth in core deposits
          Fee income generation
          Noninterest income
          Noninterest expense
          Customer portfolio profitability
          Key personal objectives

Bonus achievements:
     Bonus amounts are earned ratably based on actual results compared to a
     tiered bonus achievement matrix.
     43
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         303,657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,977,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (63,448)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,510,774
<PP&E>                                      69,715,105
<DEPRECIATION>                              (6,309,614)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              72,249,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,527,926
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        224
<COMMON>                                       136,065
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,166,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                72,249,207
<SALES>                                      8,024,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,854,992
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,677,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,926,137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (748,990)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (748,990)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (748,990)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.07)
        

</TABLE>
August 3, 2015

Mr. Brian Trudeau

Trudeau Consulting LLC

18 Old Castle Drive

Newtown, CT 06470

Dear Mr. Trudeau:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b). 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your May 18, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Trudeau Consulting, LLC.

into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1967), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
#### Esther Wilson, Respondent, v David K. Wilson, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant David K. Wilson appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated August 22, 1989, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife’s motion which was to strike his answer on the ground that he had wilfully failed to furnish a court-ordered accounting to the extent of directing that his answer would be stricken upon his failure within 45 days to furnish the accounting, and awarded the plaintiff’s counsel the sum of $3,000 in counsel fees, to be paid by the defendant.

Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof, and substituting therefor a provision providing that the attorney for the defendant David K. Wilson, Anis A. Siddiqi, shall pay the sum of $3,000 to the attorney for the plaintiff, James Hartmann, as and for the plaintiff’s counsel fees; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff; the time for Anis A. Siddiqi to pay the $3,000 is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by issuing a conditional order striking the appellant’s answer in the event he should fail within 45 days to furnish a previously court-ordered accounting *(see, Adinolfi v Adinolfi,*168 AD2d 401; *Unity Mfg. Corp. v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co.,*97 AD2d 462). In addition, the imposition of a monetary sanction, in the form of an award of counsel fees, was appropriate *(see, Demis v Demis,*168 AD2d 840; *Keingarsky v*
      *737
      *Keingarsky,*145 AD2d 537). However, under the circumstances, the sanction should be paid by the appellant’s counsel, and the order has been modified accordingly. Hooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
International Commodity Procurement Division Purchases

FY2019 - Quarter 4

Commodity Qty in MT PO Value Average Cost

BEANS, GREAT NORTHERN BAG-50 KG 1,830 $2,339,509.50 $1,278.42

BEANS, KIDNEY, LIGHT RED BAG-50 KG 620 $847,341.00 $1,366.68

BEANS, PEA BAG-50 KG 5,520 $4,835,596.10 $876.01

BEANS, PINTO BAG-50 KG 150 $88,800.00 $592.00

BEANS, SMALL RED BAG-50 KG 1,620 $1,452,916.90 $896.86

BEANS, SMALL WHITE BAG-50 KG 60 $36,062.40 $601.04

BULGUR BAG-50 KG 1,730 $605,949.80 $350.26

CORNMEAL BAG-HP-25 KG 22,240 $10,697,642.70 $481.01

CORN-SOY BLEND PLUS BAG-HP-25 KG 9,740 $5,633,609.90 $578.40

LENTILS BAG-50 KG 10,390 $4,841,315.10 $465.96

OIL, SOYBEAN, CRUDE, DEGUMMED BULK 41,110 $29,232,489.20 $711.08

OIL, SUNFLOWERSEED CAN-6/4 L 120 $219,248.00 $1,826.88

OIL, VEGETABLE BOTTLE, PLS-6/4 L 670-719 1,310 $1,518,706.22 $1,159.22

OIL, VEGETABLE CAN-6/4 L 55,371 $67,794,783.07 $1,224.38

PEAS, GREEN, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 690 $316,438.50 $458.61

PEAS, YELLOW, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 49,240 $19,610,833.00 $398.27

PEAS, YELLOW, WHOLE BAG-50 KG 1,920 $598,340.00 $311.64

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 600 $287,430.00 $479.05

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 1,620 $840,494.70 $518.82

RICE, 3/15 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 1,400 $737,462.00 $526.76

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 12,530 $6,315,580.20 $504.04

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 4,590 $2,183,397.00 $475.69

RICE, 5/20 MG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 1,170 $651,116.70 $556.51

SORGHUM BAG-50 KG 11,980 $2,655,467.50 $221.66

SORGHUM BULK 291,820 $60,519,389.40 $207.39

SOYBEAN MEAL BULK 21,790 $7,479,417.50 $343.25

TALLOW, YELLOW BULK 1,060 $743,060.00 $701.00

WHEAT, HARD RED WINTER BAG-50 KG 360 $96,489.30 $268.03

WHEAT, HARD RED WINTER BULK 250,620 $48,957,296.20 $195.34

WHEAT, SOFT WHITE BULK 268,230 $57,698,249.10 $215.11

Grand Total 1,071,431 $339,834,430.99

Commodity Qty in EA PO Value Average Cost

BAGS, WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE- 50 KG 4,375,000 $1,480,127.00 $0.3383
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1




                                 TOM BROWN, INC.

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant

                                December 31, 2000

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          Jurisdiction of                  Percent
Name of Subsidiary                                  Incorporation/Organization           Of Ownership
------------------                               --------------------------            ------------
<S>                                              <C>                                   <C>
Retex Inc.                                                Wyoming                          100%
Rocno Corporation                                         Texas                            100%
Wildhorse Energy Partners, L.L.C.                         Delaware                          45%
Sauer Drilling Company                                    Delaware                         100%
TBI West Virginia, Inc.                                   Delaware                         100%
TBI Pipeline Company                                      Delaware                         100%
Tom Brown Resources Ltd.                                  Alberta                          100%
TBI Field Services, Inc.                                  Delaware                         100%
TCP Gathering Co.                                         Colorado                         100%
</TABLE>
Fiscal Year 2024 Quarter 1

Inspection and Weighing Program

Revenue Operating 

Expense1

Earnings/

Loss Metric Tons

NATIONAL $963,569 $832,078 $131,492 29,172,525 

FIELD OFFICES

Pacific Northwest $94,782 $76,559 $18,222 758,252

Toledo $106,993 $55,337 $51,656 386,256

New Orleans $316,807 $437,815 -$121,008 14,400,285

League City $129,986 $232,284 -$102,299 1,733,041

Export Hourly & Inspection Fees $4,416,683 $7,095,384 -$2,678,701 n/a 

Non-Export Hourly & Inspection Fees2 $214,426 $479,083 -$264,658 n/a 

Program Total $6,243,245 $9,208,541 -$2,965,296 n/a

1 Obligations contain some full year obligations to support the program during fiscal

year 2024 (such as rent, communications, utilities, and annual maintenance contracts). 

2

Includes revenue and operating expenses for domestic field offices, scale testing 

programs, registration program, Technology & Science Division. 

Dated: 02/02/2024
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 17, 2019

No. 04-19-00238-CV

PREMIEANT INCORPORATED d/b/a Premieant,

Appellant

v.

Constance SNOWDEN, as next Friend and Legal Guardian of Annette Snowden, an 

incapacitated Person,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI14231

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Brief is GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of June, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Caraballo, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J.), entered July 5, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felon to an indeterminate prison term of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Defendant and his brother, co-defendant Jose Caraballo, were jointly tried under an indictment charging both of them with robbery, and charging Jose only with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Although the complainant did not state that he was robbed at knife-point, a police officer testified that upon approaching the scene of the robbery, he saw a shiny object in Jose Caraballo’s hand. Thirty dollars *382and a switchblade knife were recovered from Jose Caraballo’s pocket.

On the appeal of co-defendant Jose Caraballo, this Court reversed and remanded for separate trials on the robbery and weapon possession counts on the ground that these counts were not properly joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (b) *(People v Caraballo,*162 AD2d 214). We believe that defendant was also deprived of a fair trial by the evidence of his co-defendant’s possession of a knife.

In view of the foregoing, we do not address defendant’s other contentions. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
Exhibit 10.12.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 2
to Consulting Agreement (“Amendment No. 2”) is made as of last date of signature below (“Amendment No. 2 Effective
Date”), by and between ProMIS Neurosciences, Inc. with a principal place of business being 1920 Yonge Street, Suite 200,
Toronto, ON M4S 3E2 (“Company”) and Danforth Advisors, LLC, with a principal place of business being 91 Middle Road, Southborough,
MA 01772 (“Danforth”). Capitalized terms use but not defined herein shall have the respective meaning set forth in the Consulting
Agreement by and between Danforth Advisors and the Company dated as of October 17, 2016 (“Agreement”). Collectively,
Danforth and Company may be referred to as “Parties” and either individually as “Party”.


 


WHEREAS,
Danforth is engaged by the Company under the terms and conditions of the Agreement to provide certain Services;


 


WHEREAS,
the Term of the Agreement was set to expire on October 17, 2017; and


 


WHEREAS,
Parties now agree to extend the Term of the Agreement such that it will expire on October 17, 2018 and modify the agreement as further
detailed below.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Agreement is revised to read as follows:


 


		1.	Section 3. Term and Termination The term of this Agreement will commence on the Effective
Date and will continue through October 17, 2018 (the “Term”). This Agreement may be extended for an additional period
by mutual written agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party hereto: (a) with Cause (as defined below), upon thirty
(30) days prior written notice to the other Party; or (b) without cause upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other Party.
For purposes of this Section 3, “Cause” shall include: (i) a breach of the terms of this Agreement which is not
cured within thirty (30) days of written notice of such default or (ii) the commission of any act of fraud, embezzlement or deliberate
disregard of a rule or policy of the Company.



 


Except as specifically provided for in this Amendment
No. 2, the terms of the Agreement shall be unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect. For avoidance of doubt this Agreement
remained in effect the entire time between October 17, 2017 and the Effective Date of this Amendment No. 2.


 


This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in one
or more counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original instrument, but all of which shall be considered one and the same
Amendment No. 2, and shall become binding when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to
the other.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment
No. 2 has been executed by the Company and Danforth to be effective as of Amendment No. 2 Effective Date.


 


********


 






     


     


    

 


	DANFORTH ADVISORS, LLC	 	PROMIS NEUROSCIENCES, INC.
	 	 	 
	/s/ Gregg Beloff	 	/s/ Eugene Williams
	Name 	 	Name
	 	 	 
	Gregg Beloff	 	Eugene Williams
	Print Name	 	Print Name
	 	 	 
	Managing Director	 	Executive Chairman 
	Title	 	Title 
	 	 	 
	12/7/17	 	12/12/17 
	Date	 	Date



 






    2
Fruit & Specialty Crops 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Vegetable Inspection Room 1536-S, STOP 0240

Program Division Washington, DC 20250-0240

May 9, 2016 

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2

COMMODITY SPECIFICATION

FROZEN FRUIT - October 2014

The purpose of this amendment is to add language to Section I. Packing, Labels, and Packaging.

This language will clarify the minimum FDA labeling requirements for primary containers. The 

additions are shown in blue below:

I. Packing, Labels, and Packaging

All products must be packed in new, commercially acceptable primary containers which 

meet all applicable FDA packaging and labeling requirements (link to: FDA Food 

Labeling Regulations).

Minimum labeling requirements for the primary container are:

 Statement of identity, or name of the food

 Net quantity statement

 Ingredient statement

 Manufacturer or distributer location statement

 Allergen declaration (if product contains a major allergen).

The packages must be suitably code marked so that the product can be identified 

with related inspection certificates and to insure traceability in the event of a recall.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.