alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Amendment to the 2009 Employment Inducement Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.3 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 THE 2009 EMPLOYMENT INDUCEMENT EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 OF LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 2009 EMPLOYMENT INDUCEMENT EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN OF LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (this “Amendment”), dated as of May 10, 2012, is made and adopted
by LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan (as defined below). 

RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the
Company maintains The 2009 Employment Inducement Equity Incentive Plan of Leap Wireless International, Inc. (as amended to date, the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth below; 
 WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 10.2 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended by the Board of Directors of the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the
Board of Directors of the Company has approved this Amendment pursuant to resolutions adopted on May 10, 2012. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows: 
 1. Section 2.1 of the Plan
is hereby amended to read as follows: 
 “2.1 Shares Subject to Plan. The shares of stock subject to
Awards shall be Common Stock, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10.3. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10.3, the aggregate number of such shares which may be issued with respect to Awards granted under the Plan shall
not exceed 775,000. The shares of Common Stock issuable with respect to such Awards may be either previously authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.” 
 2. This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan. All other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein. The Plan,
as amended by this Amendment, is hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was duly
adopted by the Board of Directors of Leap Wireless International, Inc. on May 10, 2012. 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Robert J. Irving, Jr.

		 	Name: Robert J. Irving, Jr.
		 	 Title: Senior Vice President and General
           Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10261-10262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03859]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 24, 2022.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or

[[Page 10262]]

more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), 
(8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), 
(a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled 
matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement 
proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

    Dated: February 17, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03859 Filed 2-18-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
<PAGE>
 
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                            PACIFIC GATEWAY EXCHANGE
          EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                   (in thousands, except net income per share)

                                                     Three Months             Nine Months
                                                  Ended September 30,      Ended September 30,
                                                 -------------------     ----------------------
                                                  1997        1996        1997          1996
                                                 -------     -------     -------     ----------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>         <C>         <C> 
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
        AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE:
        Average Shares Outstanding
                                                  18,938      18,173      18,938         15,410
        Add:
            Common stock equivalent of stock
                 options and warrants
                                                     725         413         718            245
                                                 -------     -------     -------     ----------
                                                  19,663      18,586      19,656         15,655
                                                 =======     =======     =======     ==========
        Net income
                                                 $ 3,290     $ 2,168     $ 8,794     $    3,298
                                                 =======     =======     =======     ==========
        Primary net income per share
                                                 $  0.17     $  0.12     $  0.45     $     0.21
                                                 =======     =======     =======     ==========
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
        AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
        ASSUMING FULL DILUTION:
        Average shares outstanding               18,938      18,173      18,938         15,410

        Add:
            Common stock equivalent of stock
                 options and warrants
                                                     759         413         795            245
                                                 =======     =======     =======     ==========
                                                  19,697      18,586      19,733         15,655
                                                 =======     =======     =======     ==========
        Net income                               
                                                 $ 3,290     $ 2,168     $ 8,794     $    3,298
                                                 =======     =======     =======     ==========
        Fully diluted net income per share       $  0.17     $  0.12     $  0.45     $     0.21
                                                 =======     =======     =======     ==========
</TABLE>
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.16
















CONSENT OF JEAN-FRANÇOIS BOIVIN







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, Jean-François Boivin, participated in the preparation of the technical report entitled “Rapport technique et recommandations, Campagne d’exploration 2011, Projet Nichicun, Mines Virginia inc.”, completed in May 2012; (the “Report”), concerning mineralized material in the Nichicun property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.3.4 Geological Setting; 3.3.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.3.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  Jean-François Boivin


	Name:  Jean-François Boivin

Jr.  Eng.-Geologist



















May 14, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 10360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03857]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-04-2022-2503; FRL-9476-01-R4]


Welch Group Environmental Fair Play Superfund Site Fair Play, 
South Carolina; Notice of Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency is proposing to enter into an Administrative Settlement 
Agreement with The Feltman Family Trust of 2009. Concerning the Welch 
Group Environmental Fair Play Superfund Site located in Fair Play, 
South Carolina. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a 
cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the proposed 
settlement until March 28, 2022. The Agency will consider all comments 
received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed 
settlement, if comments received disclose facts or considerations which 
indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or 
inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed settlement are available from the 
Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the 
contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be 
submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following 
methods:
    Internet: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices.
    Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f7a7969e99839285d9a796829b96b7b2a7b6d9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9e9d8d0d7cddccb97e9d8ccd5d8f9fce9f897ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at (404) 562-8887.

Maurice L. Horsey, IV,
Chief, Enforcement Branch, Superfund & Emergency Management Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-03857 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | 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 result of operations of                    the                    Company. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                  Mark R. Newburg                                                                                                               | Dated: | November                  14, 2005 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Mark                  R. Newburg                                                                                                                   |   |                               |
| Title: | President,                  Chief Executive Officer                  and Treasurer                  (Principal                  Executive Officer) |   |                               |
|   |                                                                                                                                               |   |                               |
| By:    | /s/                  Arnaldo F. Galassi                                                                                                            | Dated: | November                  14, 2005 |
|   | Arnaldo                  F. Galassi                                                                                                                |   |                               |
| Title: | Chief                  Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal                  Financial Officer)                                              |   |                               |

----
#### William CAGLE, Jr., Appellant, v. Dr. Pasquale J. CICCONE, Director, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Appellee.

No. 18384.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 9, 1966.

William Cagle, Jr., pro se.

F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., and Clifford M. Spottsville, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and GIBSON, Circuit Judges, and NICHOL, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

William Cagle, Jr., hereinafter called defendant, has taken a timely appeal in forma pauperis from final order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice.

Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury in the United States District *184Court for the District of Columbia on a charge of second degree murder and is presently serving a sentence imposed by such court on July 21, 1952, at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri.

Defendant’s petition is prepared upon the form provided by the judges of the Western District of Missouri and in general use there. As grounds for relief, defendant asserts (1) that the indeterminate sentence imposed upon him is illegal, and (2) that he was convicted by the knowing use of perjured testimony by the prosecutor.

The trial court in its opinion correctly points out that the petition on its face shows petitioner has not sought relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 in the sentencing court upon the grounds here asserted and that he has neither alleged nor demonstrated that his § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his conviction.

Section 2255 clearly requires a prisoner to exhaust his remedies under such section in the sentencing court before seeking relief by habeas corpus. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; Haynes v. Harris, 8 Cir., 344 F.2d 463, 466; Smith v. Settle, 8 Cir., 302 F.2d 142, 143.

 While § 2255 contains the exception that habeas corpus may lie without previously invoking relief under § 2255 where it is shown that the § 2255 relief is inadequate or ineffective, the burden is upon the petitioner to allege or demonstrate inadequacy or ineffectiveness. Smith v. Settle, supra. Such burden has not here been met.

The trial court upon the basis of a full consideration of the record before it concluded:

> “Because petitioner has not sought relief in the committing court under Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.C.A. on the grounds here relied on, and because he has not demonstrated that his remedy under that Section is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, this petition should be dismissed without prejudice.”

Our examination of the record convinces us that the trial court properly dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for the reasons which it states.

The judgment dismissing the petition is affirmed.
#### The State v. Kreiger et al.

1. Criminal Law: two on triad: confession by one. K. and B. were . tried together for larceny, and there was evidence’ of confessions made by K., tending also to implicate B. to a slight extent. The court instructed the jury that “the confessions of the defendants, or either of them, unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that the offense was committed, and such confessions, to have any weight, must have been freely and voluntarily made.” *Held*that the jury could not have inferred from this instruction that any confessions made by K. were in any manner to prejudice B.

*Appeal from Iowa District Ooxtrt.*

Friday, March 4.

Indictment charging the defendants .Kreiger and Beal with the larceny of “ one set double harness.” Trial by jury. Yerdict and judgment. The defendant Beal appeals.

*J. T.*Deem, for appellant.

*A. J.*Baker, Attorney-general, for the State.

Seevers, J.

This case has been submitted on a transcript, without argument, and we have examined, as is our duty, the entire record. *~We*are not advised as to the grounds upon which the appellant relies to obtain a reversal of the judgment; but we infer that it is claimed that the court erred in giving the nfth paragraph of the charge to the jury, *33for the reason that this is the sole ground upon which a new trial was asked. That instruction is as follows: You are instructed'that the confessions of the defendants, or either of them, unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that the offense was committed; and such confessions, in order to have any weight, must have been freely and voluntarily made.” This instruction, as an abstract proposition, is undoubtedly correct; but we' assume that it is claimed to be erroneous upon the ground that there is no evidence tending to show that appellant made any confessions. Kreiger, however, did, aud, as to him, there was evidence upon which the instruction can be properly based. It is possibly true that the court should have said to the jury that the confessions of one defendant should not prejudice his co-defendant; but we are not prepared to say that the appellant was prejudiced by, the failure of the court in this respect. We think the jury must have understood the instruction to, mean that the confession of one defendant was insufficient to warrant *Ms*conviction, unless made in open court, etc. To hold otherwise, we should be compelled to assume that the jury did not possess ordinary intelligence. The confessions made by Kreiger tend to implicate the appellant to a slight extent; but no objections were made thereto at any time by the appellant. For some satisfactory reason, it must be' assumed, his counsel deemed it best that such evidence should be admitted, and therefore we cannot say that the court erred.

Upon the whole record, we are not prepared to say that the court committed any prejudicial error during the trial of this case.

Affirmed.
|                                |                                                                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| •     | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and |

|                                |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| •     | The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the Company's financial condition and results of operations. |

|                                                                                                                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Gary L. Nalbandian                                                        |
| Gary L. Nalbandian,Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                     |
|                                                                                                                                           |
| /s/ Mark A. Zody                      |
| Mark A. Zody,Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                           |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bladmer MERCADO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41054 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bladmer Mercado-Garcia, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bladmer Mercado-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mercado-Garda has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous *269issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.