alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11(b)

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1
 TO
  STRIDENT SUPERHOLDINGS, INC. 2012 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 

This AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of September 25, 2014 (this “Amendment”), to that certain Strident Superholdings, Inc. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”).

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS, Strident Superholdings, Inc. has previously changed its name to Connolly Superholdings, Inc.

 

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of Connolly Superholdings, Inc. (f/k/a Strident Superholdings, Inc.) (the “Plan Administrator”) desires to amend Section 5.1(a) of the Plan to increase the maximum number of Shares (as defined in the Plan) that may be issued pursuant to Awards (as defined in the Plan) under the Plan.

 

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that:

 

1.             Defined Terms.  Capitalized terms used herein, but not defined herein, have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan.

 

2.             Amendments.

 

(a)           All references within the Plan to “Strident Superholdings, Inc.” and “the Company” shall deemed to refer to “Connolly Superholdings, Inc.”

 

(b)            Section 5.1(a) of the Plan shall be, and hereby is, amended and restated as follows:

 

“(a)  Shares.  Subject to adjustment as provided in this Article 5 and Article 12 of the Plan, the maximum number of Shares available for issuance to Participants pursuant to Awards under the Plan shall be 1,187,431 Shares.  The number of Shares available for granting Incentive Stock Options under the Plan shall not exceed 720,000 Shares, subject to adjustments provided in Article 12 hereof and subject to the provisions of Sections 422 or 424 of the Code or any successor provisions.  The Shares available for issuance under this Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and unissued Shares or treasury Shares.  Any Shares delivered to the Company as part or full payment for the purchase price of an Award granted under this Plan, to satisfy the Company’s withholding obligation with respect to an Award granted under this Plan or repurchased by the Company (or its designee) shall again be available for Awards under the Plan.”

 

3.             Reference to and Effect on the Plan.  Except as specifically amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.  All references in the Plan to the “Plan” shall mean the Plan as amended by this Amendment.

 

4.             Effectiveness.  This Amendment shall become effective as of the date this Amendment is approved by the Board of Directors of Connolly Superholdings, Inc.
From: E L Swarts

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Health Care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:47:10 AM

We join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access

to necessary health care.

Sadly, some groups, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing

the government to make exemptions even larger, even pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers. Were this policy implemented, hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

We urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Rachel Swarts

Dr. Lowell Swarts
#### David Rose, Respondent, v. John Rose, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bradley, J.
FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 February 8, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 02-14828

___________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00850-CV-8-T-17TGW

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN AVIATION, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________

No. 02-14830

___________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00851-CV-8-T-17TBM

PROFILE AVIATION SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN AVIATION, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.
Honorable Robert B. Propst, United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Alabama, sitting by designation.

2

_________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(February 8, 2005)

Before ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and PROPST , District Judge. *

PER CURIAM

The procedural history, facts and issues in this case are summarized in our

previous opinion in which we certified dispositive questions of state law to the

Supreme Court of Florida. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v.

American Aviation, Inc., 344 F.3d 1136 (11th Cir. 2003). We have received the

answer of the Supreme Court of Florida. Indemnity Insurance Company of North

America, et. al., v. American Aviation, Inc., 2004 WL 2973861

(Fla. 2004).

We certified five questions to the Supreme Court of Florida. The court

combined and rephrased our first two questions to read as follows:

WHETHER THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE BARS A

NEGLIGENCE ACTION TO RECOVER PURELY ECONOMIC

LOSS IN A CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS NEITHER A

MANUFACTURER NOR DISTRIBUTOR OF A PRODUCT AND
3

THERE IS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT.

Id. at *1.

The court then answered the rephrased question in the negative. The court

stated:

We conclude that the "economic loss doctrine" or "economic loss

rule" bars a negligence action to recover solely economic damages

only in circumstances where the parties are either in contractual

privity or the defendant is a manufacturer or distributor of a product,

and no established exception to the application of the rule applies.

Because the defendant in this case is neither a manufacturer nor

distributor of a product, and the parties are not in privity of contract,

this negligence action is not barred by the economic loss rule. The

remaining certified questions concerning exceptions to the economic

loss doctrine are moot in light of our determination that the economic

loss rule does not apply to this case.

Id.

The answer of the Supreme Court of Florida being inconsistent with the

judgments of the district court dismissing the tort claims, we reverse as to those

claims and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida. There has been no appeal as to

the dismissal of the breach of warranty claims and we affirm the judgments as to

those claims. 

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000,000
                                                            
<S>                             <C>                         
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996  
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996  
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996  
<CASH>                                                  82 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,251 
<ALLOWANCES>                                           242 
<INVENTORY>                                            244 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     3,956 
<PP&E>                                              37,317 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      19,642 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      27,659 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,854 
<BONDS>                                              9,326 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                               455 
<OTHER-SE>                                           6,604 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        27,659 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    13,454 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       10,841 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (98) 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     637 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      2,087 
<INCOME-TAX>                                           741 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,346 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                              131 
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,477 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         3.38 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         3.38 
                                                      


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Maloney, Appellant, *v.*Edward Lazansky, Secretary of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

*People ex rel. Maloney*v. *Lazanslty,*150 App. Div. —, affirmed.

(Argued April 29, 1912;

decided May 14, 1912.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 4, 1912, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel a new primary election in the thirteenth assembly district of the county of Kings.

*John C. Judge*for appellant.

*Archibald JR. Watson, Corporation Counsel (James D. Bell*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
From: Kathleen Baas

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: access to preventive care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:54:47 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access

to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT NO.
1 


TO 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment
No. 1 to the Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), dated April 27, 2016, is by and between Drone Aviation Holding
Corp., a Nevada corporation with an address 11651 Central Parkway #118, Jacksonville, FL 32224 (the “Company”),
and Kendall Carpenter (the “Executive”).


WHEREAS, the parties
entered into an Employment Agreement on May 18, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the parties
wish to further amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below, with the understanding that all other provisions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain unchanged;


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:


1.
Section 3 of the Employment Agreement- Term of Employment- is hereby extended by one (1) year until May 18, 2018.


2.
Section 4(d) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:


The
Employee shall be entitled to participate in such pension, profit sharing, group insurance, hospitalization, and group health
and benefit plans and all other benefits and plans, including perquisites, if any, as the Corporation provides to its senior Employees,
including group family health insurance coverage which shall be paid by the Corporation (the “Benefit Plans”).
In the event the Corporation does not have a health benefit plan in place, or the health benefit plan is limited geographically,
the Corporation shall reimburse the Employee for expenses incurred in maintaining health and dental insurance for Employee, her
spouse and children, in an amount not to exceed $1,500 per month.


3.
Section 4 of the Employment Agreement – Compensation of Employee – is hereby modified to $150,000 annual Base Salary.


4.
The terms and conditions of all other sections of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this agreement as of the date first stated above.


 






    	 		 



    	 



    

 


Signature Page
to the Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement]


 





	 	 	DRONE AVIATION HOLDING CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	 	By: /s/ Kendall Carpenter
	 	 	Name: Kendall W. Carpenter
	 	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	By: /s/ Jay H. Nussbaum
	 	 	Name: Jay H. Nussbaum
	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 



 






    	 	2
From: Jo Anne Viserta-Galinis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:44:21 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Jo Anne Viserta-Galinis

18842 Lister Lane

Huntington Beach, CA 92646
From: C Verga

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Womens health

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:02:37 PM

 As a nation built on diversity, we must not be governed by a small

group of ideologues. While I might respect their right to make their

own choices in their and their families lives, they may not limit my

right to free choice. Insist that women have coverage for basic health

care. Thank you. Carol A Verga
#### Anna B. Cavarly, Respondent, v. Judson Jarvis, Appellant. Same v. Judson Jarvis and Sarah A. Jarvis Appellants.

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Certification of President and (Chief Executive Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Industrial Minerals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert G. Dinning, President and (Chief Executive Officer) certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 August 14, 2009                   /s/ Robert G. Dinning
                                   ------------------
                                   Robert G. Dinning
                                   President and CE0
<Page>

                                                                     [LOGO]


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 22 to the
registration statement on Form N-4 (No. 033-37577) (the "Registration
Statement") of our report dated February 20, 2004, relating to the financial
statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 5, 2004
From: Marta Luisa del Campo

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:54:01 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from

the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Best wishes for women's rights to be respected by society and government at large,

Marta L. del Campo, PhD
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 11
                                                                  ----------
                   PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
    (Dollars in millions, except per share amounts; shares in thousands)

                                            For the Year Ended December 31
                                               1996       1995        1994
                                            -------------------------------


Net income (loss) ........................   $1,142    $(2,312)     $1,159
                                           ========    =======    ========
Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding ....................  428,388    425,996     423,969

Common stock equivalent shares
   applicable to stock options ...........    1,537        389         818
                                           --------    -------    --------

Total number of shares for computing
   primary earnings per share ............  429,925    426,385     424,787

Incremental shares for computing fully
   diluted earnings per share ............    1,159        323           -
                                            -------    -------    --------
Total number of shares for computing
   fully diluted earnings per share ......  431,084    426,708     424,787
                                            =======    =======    ========
Earnings (loss) per common share
   (as reported)..........................    $2.67     $(5.43)      $2.73
Primary earnings (loss) per share ........    $2.66     $(5.42)      $2.73
Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share ..    $2.65     $(5.42)      $2.73

Earnings per share amounts for the three-years ended December 31, 1996, as
reported in the Consolidated Statements of Income, were based on the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the respective
years. Primary and fully diluted earnings per share amounts were not shown
in the Consolidated Statements of Income, as they differ from the reported
earnings per share amounts by less than three percent.
From: Sally Daniel

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:42:56 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the

exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would

be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and

ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you for your protection of the separation of church and state!

Sally W. Daniel

Women Expanding Boundaries

formerly--Women in Technology and Safety Services

Tidewater Community College

1700 College Crescent

Virginia Beach, VA 23453

Telephone: (757) 822-7554

email: sdaniel@tcc.edu

Office: JB 41

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may

contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any access, use, disclosure or distribution of this

email message by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized and prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient (or

an agent acting on an intended recipient's behalf), please contact the sender by reply email and immediately destroy all copies of the

original message. Virus scanning is recommended on all email attachments.