alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit Index
                                 -------------

The following are the exhibits in this document:

            (a) Exhibits

                    (3)    Restated Articles of Incorporation
                           A - Met-Ed
                           B - Penelec


                    (12)   Statements  Showing  Computation of Ratio of Earnings
                           to Fixed  Charges  and Ratio of  Earnings to Combined
                           Fixed Charges and Preferred  Stock Dividends Based on
                           SEC Regulation S-K, Item 503

                           A - GPU, Inc. and Subsidiary  Companies 
                           B - JCP&L 
                           C - Met-Ed 
                           D - Penelec

                    (27)     Financial Data Schedules

                           A - GPU, Inc. and Subsidiary  Companies 
                           B - JCP&L 
                           C - Met-Ed
                           D - Penelec
EX-10.14





 Exhibit 10.14 

AMENDMENT TO 
 FARADAY
HOLDINGS, LLC 2015 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Faraday Holdings,
LLC 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is made and shall be effective as of September 14, 2017 (the “Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned in the
Plan. 
 WHEREAS, the members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Faraday Holdings, LLC (the
“Company”) determined by unanimous written consent without a meeting on the Effective Date that it is desirable and in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan to increase the number of Units reserved for grant under the
Plan to one hundred fifty-five thousand six hundred eighty-nine (155,689) Units. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with
Section 15(b) of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. Amendment. Section 5(a) of the Plan
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 (a) Basic Limitations. The Common Units issuable under
the Plan shall be authorized but unissued Units or treasury Units. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 11, the maximum aggregate number of Units that may be issued: 

(i) under the Plan shall not exceed one hundred fifty-five thousand six hundred eighty-nine (155,689) Units (the “Unit
Limit”); and 
 (ii) pursuant to the exercise of IUOs granted under this Plan shall not exceed one hundred
fifty-five thousand six hundred eighty-nine (155,689) Units (the “IUO Limit”). 
 2. Effect of
Amendment. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between this Amendment and the Plan, this Amendment shall control.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


240 Greenwich
Street, 22W Floor, New York, NY 10286


 


 


 


January 15, 2021


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 503 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on January 14, 2021, in
accordance with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We
consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the
Registration Statement (No. 333-250949) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the
sale of the Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
EXHIBIT
10.42




First
Amendment
 To
 Change
of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
 
 This
First Amendment (the
“First Amendment”) to Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreementis made this 27h day
of September, 2008, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on the one hand, and David Harding, Vice President
of Engineering and Chief Technical Officer, on the other hand (the “Executive”).
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into a Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
dated as of May 21, 2007 (the “Severance Agreement”); and
 
 WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and
 
 WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Severance Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Severance Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
 
 Section“2.Term of
Agreement”strike the
language “continue until the second anniversary of the Effective Date” and
replace it with “continue until June 30, 2009”.
 
 
 
 
 _________________________________                                                              _________________________________
 
 ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                                     David
Harding
# C_2021009EN.01003001.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/30

---

Action brought on 9 November 2020 — OA v EESC

(Case T-671/20)

(2021/C 9/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OA (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboudi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision of 5 December 2019 which was upheld by the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 5 March 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of 5 December 2019 which was upheld by the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 5 March 2020;

| — | order payment of compensation for non-material damage amounting to EUR 30 000 and compensation for material damage estimated at EUR 25 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order payment of compensation for non-material damage amounting to EUR 30 000 and compensation for material damage estimated at EUR 25 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural safeguards laid down for administrative and disciplinary investigations, and infringement of the principles of impartiality and sound administration. In that regard, the applicant claims that the administrative investigation concerning him is vitiated by numerous formal and procedural irregularities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural safeguards laid down for administrative and disciplinary investigations, and infringement of the principles of impartiality and sound administration. In that regard, the applicant claims that the administrative investigation concerning him is vitiated by numerous formal and procedural irregularities.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and a manifest error of assessment, as well as misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and a manifest error of assessment, as well as misuse of powers.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                HERBERT L. LUCAS


        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, Herbert L. Lucas
constitutes and appoints Steven H. Moger or William D. St. John his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead, in any
and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB of Nutraceutix, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999, and any amendments or
supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB with
all exhibits thereto, and to the documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASDAQ National Market System,
granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and
perform each requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        Dated this 24th day of March, 2000.

Signature:


/s/ Herbert L. Lucas
-----------------------------------
Herbert L. Lucas
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 94

To repeal the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Amendments

of 1992 which provide for optional trustee-to-trustee transfers of eligible

rollover distributions and impose a withholding tax on distributions not

so transferred.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas (for herself, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr.

MURPHY, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mr. TANNER,

Mr. GALLO, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. BOEHNER,

Mr. HUTTO, Mr. DARDEN, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. PETRI, Mr. EWING, Mr.

JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. LEACH, Mr. SMITH of Texas,

Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr. FAWELL, and Mr. BLILEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To repeal the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation

Amendments of 1992 which provide for optional trusteeto-trustee transfers of eligible rollover distributions and

impose a withholding tax on distributions not so transferred.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 522 of the Unemployment Compensation

4 Amendments of 1992 is hereby repealed and the Internal

5 Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and administered
2

•HR 94 IH

1 as if such section (and the amendments made by such sec2 tion) had not been enacted.

Æ
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 154

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that any

general appropriation bill making appropriations for the Veterans’ Administration may not make appropriations for any other department

or agency of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1993

Mr. MANZULLO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

provide that any general appropriation bill making appropriations for the Veterans’ Administration may not make

appropriations for any other department or agency of

the United States.

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the

3 following new clause:

4 ‘‘8. No general appropriation bill reported by the

5 Committee on Appropriations making appropriations for

6 the Department of Veterans’ Affairs shall make appro-
2

•HRES 154 IH

1 priations for any other department or agency of the

2 United States.’’.

Æ
#### FEDERATED MUTUAL IMPLEMENT & HARDWARE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Ervin E. Faircloth, Petitioners, v. Lula COLLINS, Respondent.

No. 41118.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 14, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 247 So.2d 461.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 16 June 2005

in Case C-104/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 97/13/EC - Telecommunication services - Contribution to research and development)

(2005/C 193/09)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-104/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.-F. Pasquier and M. Shotter) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 February 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 94, 17.04.2004.

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13879]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

International Product Change--Global Expedited Package Services--
Non-Published Rates

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add Global Expedited Package Services--
Non-Published Rates 14 (GEPS-NPR 14) to the Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice: June 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle R. Coppin, 202-268-2368.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on June 22, 2018, 
it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United 
States Postal Service to add Global Expedited Package Services--Non-
Published Rates 14 (GEPS--NPR 14) to the Competitive Products List and 
Notice of Filing GEPS--NPR 14 Model Contract and Application for Non-
Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal. Documents are available 
at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-186 and CP2018-260.

Ruth Stevenson,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-13879 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 365

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to limit the availability

of appropriations for office salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives to one year and to require excess amounts appropriated

for that purpose to be used for open-market purchase of outstanding

interest-bearing obligations of the Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 22, 1994

Mr. HEFLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

limit the availability of appropriations for office salaries

and expenses of the House of Representatives to one

year and to require excess amounts appropriated for

that purpose to be used for open-market purchase of

outstanding interest-bearing obligations of the Government.

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the

3 following new clause:
2

•HRES 365 IH

1 ‘‘8. It shall not be in order to consider any measure

2 appropriating amounts for salaries and expenses of the

3 House unless such measure—

4 ‘‘(a) prohibits availability of any such amount

5 for obligation for that purpose after the end of the

6 fiscal year for which the amount is appropriated;

7 and

8 ‘‘(b) requires that any such amount not so obli9 gated be used for open-market purchase of outstand10 ing interest-bearing obligations of the Government.’’.

Æ
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 306

To designate majority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 10, 1993

Mr. HOYER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To designate majority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

2 they are hereby, elected to the following standing commit3 tees of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Luis V.

5 Gutierrez, Illinois.

6 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECH7 NOLOGY: Bobby L. Rush, Illinois.

Æ
#### Barbara Goodwin COOPER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES et al., Respondents.

No. 42634.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Steve M. Watkins, of Watkins & Hall, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

J. Lewis Hall of Hall, Hartwell & Hall, and Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the Industrial Relations Commission filed July 13, 1972. We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is, therefore, dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A. The order of the Judge of Industrial Claims was adequately sustained by the evidence under our rule in United States Casualty Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, 55 So.2d 741 (Fla.1951). Accordingly, the Commission acted in error when it reversed said order and dismissed the cause.

The order of the Industrial Relations Commission is quashed, and that body is hereby directed to reinstate the order of the Judge below.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Fred WASSERMAN, Petitioner, v. Hon. Warren H. EDWARDS, Judge, Criminal Court of Record, Orange County, Florida, Division A, Respondent.

No. 71-596.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 19, 1971.

Prohibition denied.
# C_2015231EN.01000401.xml

| 15.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

14 July 2015

(2015/C 231/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1031 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,02 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4625 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70840 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4080 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0422 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9925 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,080 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,90 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1500 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4235 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9086 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4828 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4076 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5500 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6468 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5002 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 259,33 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,6795 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8478 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5767 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 706,09 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1912 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 49,886 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,5347 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,536 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4515 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3076 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,8704 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1031

JPY

Japanese yen

136,02

DKK

Danish krone

7,4625

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70840

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4080

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0422

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9925

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,080

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,90

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1500

RON

Romanian leu

4,4235

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9086

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4828

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4076

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5500

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6468

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5002

KRW

South Korean won

1 259,33

ZAR

South African rand

13,6795

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8478

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5767

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 706,09

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1912

PHP

Philippine peso

49,886

RUB

Russian rouble

62,5347

THB

Thai baht

37,536

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4515

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3076

INR

Indian rupee

69,8704

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2020262EN.01003302.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/33

---

Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM)

(Case T-372/20)

(2020/C 262/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark JUVEDERM — European Union trade mark No 2 196 822

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 in Case R 877/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the contested decision concerning the rejection of the application for revocation of EUTM No 2 196 822 JUVEDERM for the contested goods ‘biocompatible substances for medical purposes for reducing wrinkles’; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision concerning the rejection of the application for revocation of EUTM No 2 196 822 JUVEDERM for the contested goods ‘biocompatible substances for medical purposes for reducing wrinkles’;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant at every stage of the action for revocation and appeal proceedings, including the cost of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant at every stage of the action for revocation and appeal proceedings, including the cost of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of the relevant law, concerning the assessment of the nature of the goods, the trade mark has been used for; |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of the relevant law, concerning the assessment of the nature of the goods, the trade mark has been used for;

| — | Lack of proof concerning the use of the trade mark by third parties with the consent of the EUTM proprietor under the meaning of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lack of proof concerning the use of the trade mark by third parties with the consent of the EUTM proprietor under the meaning of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---