alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SJI Exh 10eiv 12.31.11 Schedule of Officer Agreements












	
																	
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Exhibit (10)(e)(iv)
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	SOUTH JERSEY INDUSTRIES, INC.
SCHEDULE OF OFFICER AGREEMENTS 






Pursuant to Rule 12b-31, the following sets forth the material details which differ in the Officer Employment Agreements, the form of which is filed herewith as Exhibit (10)(e)(iii).




	
						
	Name
	Capacities in Which Served
	Date of Agreement
	Minimum Base Salary
	Minimum Performance Based Annual Cash Award - % of Base Salary *
	Minimum Long-Term Incentive Plan Award - % of Base Salary*

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Edward J. Graham
	Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, South Jersey Industries, Inc.; President and Chief Executive Officer, South Jersey Gas Company
	1/1/2012
	$670,000
	74%
	99%

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	David A. Kindlick
	Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, South Jersey Industries, Inc.; Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, South Jersey Gas Company
	1/1/2012
	$300,000
	47%
	63%

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Michael Renna
	Vice President, South Jersey Industries, Inc.; President, South Jersey Energy Solutions
	1/1/2012
	$300,000
	53%
	63%

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Jeffrey E. DuBois
	Vice President, South Jersey Industries, Inc.; Senior Vice President, Operations & Sales, South Jersey Gas Company
	1/1/2012
	$280,000
	50%
	61%

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Kevin D. Patrick
	Vice President, South Jersey Industries, Inc.
	1/1/2012
	$244,000
	44%
	55%




                                       
*  Payable only if performance criteria are attained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7035
WALTER LEE WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusBISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden sued in his individual and official capacities; GARYHORNBAKER, Assistant Warden sued in his individual and official capacities; JAMES MURPHY, Chief of Security sued in his individual andofficial capacities; MICHAEL MILLER, Classification Counsel sued in his individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-3748-AW, CA-96-3749-AW) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. Wright v. Robinson , Nos. CA-96-3748-AW; CA-96-3749-AW, (D. Md. July 3, 1997). 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 17, 2018

No. 04-18-00576-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J.J. JR., A CHILD,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA01036

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In this accelerated appeal of the July 18, 2018 order terminating Appellant’s parental 

rights, Appellant’s brief was due to be filed with this court on October 15, 2018. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.6(a). On the brief’s due date, Appellant filed a motion for a twenty-day extension of 

time to file Appellant’s brief. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed in this court by 

November 5, 2018. See id. Further motions for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief are 

discouraged. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2, (directing courts of appeals to dispose of SAPCR 

suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40824 Summary Calendar

RAY COLGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus C.W. MARTIN, Warden; JAMES A. LYNAUGH; UNIDENTIFIED BENNETT; and ANDY COLLINS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:94-CV-11

-- - - - - - - - - March 22, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ray Colgrove appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his pro se , in forma pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Colgrove did not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that prisoners were aware of facts that a substantial risk of harm existed regarding his failure-to-protectNo. 95-40824 - 2 - claim. Therefore, Colgrove does not demonstrate that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his right to be free from the violence of other inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994). Colgrove has also failed to demonstrate that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1993). We warn Colgrove that the filing of frivolous appeals will result in additional sanctions. E.g. , Smith v. McCleod , 946 F.2d 417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter , 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991). If Colgrove has any other appeals pending in this court at this time, he should review them in light of the foregoing warning and move to withdraw any appeal that is frivolous.
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Management and research applications of long-range surveillance radar data for birds, bats, and flying insects      

      December 23, 2008    

View Document

There is renewed interest in using long-range surveillance radar as a biological research tool due to substantial improvements in the network of radars within the United States. Technical improvements, the digital nature of the radar data, and the availability of computing power and geographic information systems, enable a broad range of biological applications. This publication provides a summary of long-range surveillance radar technology and applications of these data to questions about movement patterns of birds and other flying wildlife. The intended audience is potential radar-data end users, including natural-resource management and regulatory agencies, conservation organizations, and industry. This summary includes a definition of long-range surveillance radar, descriptions of its strengths and weaknesses, information on applications of the data, cost, methods of calibration, and what end users need to do, and some key references and resources.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Robb Diehl, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center

rhdiehl@usgs.gov

406-994-7481

## Related Content

#### Robb Diehl, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center

rhdiehl@usgs.gov

406-994-7481

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Fort Collins Science Center          

2150 Centre AvenueBldg CFort Collins, CO80526United States

970-226-9100

970-226-9230

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - texas

View All **
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36740

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

JOHN ANTHONY RICHTER

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished O pinion No. 46 5

Filed: May 14, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, St ate of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Timothy Hansen , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years

, for attempted strangulation

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attor ney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

John Anthony Richter entered an Alford 1 pl ea to attempted strangulation . I.C. § 18

- 923

. In exchange for his plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced

Richter to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum pe riod of confinement of five years

.

Richter appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reason ableness of the sentence are well established and

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohi ll , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Richter ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 32004R0574 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004R0574

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 574/2004 of 23 February 2004 amending Annexes I and III to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste statistics (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 090 , 27/03/2004 P. 0015 - 0047 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 574/2004

of 23 February 2004

amending Annexes I and III to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste statistics

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2002 on waste statistics(1), and in particular Article 1(5) and Article 6 point (b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By virtue of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002, the Commission is required to lay down the arrangements for implementing that Regulation.

(2) Under Article 6 point (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002, the Commission may adapt the specifications in the Annexes thereto.

(3) Under Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002, the Commission is required to establish a table of equivalence between the statistical nomenclature of Annex III thereto and the list of waste established by Commission Decision 2000/532/EC(2).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Statistical Programme Committee established by Council Decision 89/382/EEC, Euratom(3),

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 are amended as follows:

1. In Annex I, Section 2(1) is replaced by Annex I to this Regulation.

2. Annex III is replaced by Annex II to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 February 2004.

For the Commission

Pedro Solbes Mira

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 332, 9.12.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 226, 6.9.2000, p. 3. Decision as last amended by Decision 2001/573/EC (OJ L 203, 28.7.2001, p. 18).

(3) OJ L 181, 28.6.1989, p. 47.

ANNEX I

"ANNEX I

SECTION 2

Waste categories

1. Statistics on the following waste categories are to be produced:

>TABLE>"

ANNEX II

"ANNEX III

TABLE OF EQUIVALENCE

as referred to in Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002, between EWC-Stat Rev. 3 (substance oriented waste statistical nomenclature) and European list of waste (LoW) established by Commission Decision 2000/532/EC

>TABLE>"
# C_2005009EN.01000201.xml

| 13.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3613 — Techint/Stella/James Jones/Investindustrial/Clessidra/Sirti)

(2005/C 9/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 7 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Italian and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site 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 under document number 32004M3613. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3613. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
proteo_10q-ex1018.htm


 







Exhibit 10.18







Prof. Dr. med. Oliver Wiedow


Forstweg 55


D-24105 Kiel


Germany







Kiel, on July 28, 2011







Proteo, Inc.



	
Att:

	
Chief Executive Officer







Ms. Birge Bargmann


2102 Business Center Drive


Irvine, CA 92612


USA













Re: Elafin License Agreement









Dear Ms. Bargmann.







This is to confirm certain agreements and understandings reached between me and Proteo, Inc. in December 2010 based on the following background:







Pursuant to the provisions of the license agreement between Proteo, Inc. (hereinafter “Licen­see“) and myself (hereinafter “Licensor“, Licensee and Licensor collectively the “Parties”) dated December 30th, 2000 as amended on December 23rd, 2008 (hereinafter the “License Agreement“), Licensee promised to pay certain amounts to Licensor. In December 2007 and December 2008, Licensee paid to Licensor 30,000 Euros per year and no other payments were made under the License Agreement to Licensor
as of July 28th, 2011. I herewith confirm that based on the foregoing we have agreed on the following in December 2010:








	
1.

	
The Parties herewith agree that Licensor defers to December 31st, 2011 the instalment payable by Licensee in the amount of 60,000 Euros, which otherwise would be due on December 31st, 2010 (hereinafter the  “Deferral”).













	
2.

	
Neither the waiver nor the Deferral under Section 1 hereof, would constitute a waiver of or estoppel to Licensor‘s rights to already existing or future pay­ment obligations under the License Agreement.












Please confirm by respective countersignature that you are in agreement with this letter and with this confirmation of our agreement from December 2010.








Kind regards,









/s/ Oliver Wiedow


Prof. Dr. med. Oliver Wiedow












We agree to the foregoing


Proteo, Inc., on July 28, 2011


/s/ Birge Bargmann


Birge Bargmann, Chief Executive Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Making it and breaking it in the Midwest: Continental assembly and rifting from modeling of EarthScope magnetotelluric data      

      June 1, 2016    

A three-dimensional lithospheric-scale resistivity model of the North American mid-continent has been estimated based upon EarthScope magnetotelluric data. Details of the resistivity model are discussed in relation to lithospheric sutures, defined primarily from aeromagnetic and geochronologic data, which record the southward growth of the Laurentian margin in the Proterozoic. The resistivity signature of the 1.1 Ga Mid-continent Rift System is examined in detail, in particular as relates to rift geometry, extent, and segmentation. An unrecognized expanse of (concealed) Proterozoic deltaic deposits in Kansas is identified and speculated to result from axial drainage along the southwest rift arm akin to the Rio Grande delta which drains multiple rift basins. A prominent conductor traces out Cambrian rifting in Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky; this linear conductor has not been imaged before and suggests that the Cambrian rift system may have been more extensive than previously thought. The highest conductivity within the mid-continent is imaged in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin where it is coincident with Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks. The high conductivity is attributed to metallic sulfides, and in some cases, graphite. The former is a potential source of sulfur for multiple mineral deposits types, occurrences of which are found throughout the region. Finally, the imprint left within the mantle following the 1.1 Ga rifting event is examined. Variations in lithospheric mantle conductivity are observed and are interpreted to reflect variations in water content (depleted versus metasomatized mantle) imprinted upon the mantle by the Keweenawan mantle plume.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Paul A Bedrosian

##### Research Geophysicist

Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

pbedrosian@usgs.gov

303-236-4834

## Related Content

#### Paul A Bedrosian

##### Research Geophysicist

Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

pbedrosian@usgs.gov

303-236-4834

### Contact

#### Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

West 6th Avenue and Kipling StreetDenver Federal Center Building 20Denver, CO80225United States

303-236-1800

303-236-3200

### Explore Search

                  - Information Systems
                  - Methods and Analyses
                  - Science Technology

View All **
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document











 



 
 

Exhibit 10.10    
    


 
  Axcelis Technologies, Inc.
  Named Executive Officer Base Compensation at March 1, 2008    
    


        This Exhibit discloses the current understandings with respect to base compensation between Axcelis Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") and each of: 



	•
	the
Company's principal executive officer (Mary G. Puma),



	•
	the
Company's principal financial officer (Stephen G. Bassett), and



	•
	the
three most highly compensated other executive officers serving as executive officers at December 31, 2007. 




        These
executive officers are referred to herein as "named executive officers" or "NEOs." 


        Other
than in the case of Mary G. Puma, the Company has not entered into any written agreements with its named executive officers addressing the amount of base salary due to the
executive. The Company's Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Ms. Puma is listed as Exhibit 10.12 to this Form 10-K (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 to the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 filed on November 8, 2007). The Company maintains that all executive officers,
other than Ms. Puma, are employees at will and that the Company has no obligation to pay base salary, other than amounts accrued for services rendered prior to termination of employment and
other than in circumstances where the Change of Control Agreements described in our Proxy Statement and filed as an Exhibit to this Form 10-K are applicable. 


        In
the course of the employment relationship with each NEO, the Company communicates to the named executive officer the amount of base salary approved by the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors, which compensation is subject to change in the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The following table sets forth the annual base salary as
communicated to the named executive officers of the Company as in effect on March 1, 2008: 



	Named Executive Officer
	 	Title
	 	Base Salary

	Mary G. Puma	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	$	500,000
	Stephen G. Bassett	 	Executive VP and Chief Financial Officer	 	$	300,000
	Matthew Flynn	 	Executive VP, Global Customer Operations	 	$	350,000
	Lynnette C. Fallon	 	Executive VP, HR/Legal and General Counsel	 	$	305,000
	Kevin Brewer	 	Senior VP, Manufacturing Operations	 	$	275,000













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.10


Axcelis Technologies, Inc. Named Executive Officer Base Compensation at March 1, 2008