alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
knwn_ex103.htm

EXHIBIT 10.3
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO
 SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE REDEEMABLE DEBENTURE
 DATED DECEMBER 12, 2017
  
 This AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE REDEEMABLE DEBENTURE dated DECEMBER 12, 2017 (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 7, 2022, by and between Clayton A. Struve (the “Holder”) and Know Labs, Inc., a Nevada corporation f/k/a Visualant, Incorporated (the “Company”).
  
 RECITALS
  
 WHEREAS, the Company is a party to that certain Senior Secured Convertible Redeemable Debenture, dated December 12, 2017, as amended (as so amended, the “Debenture”), payable to Holder (capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Debenture);
  
 WHEREAS, the Debenture currently has a Maturity Date of September 30, 2022; and
  
 WHEREAS, the Holder and the Company wish to amend the Debenture to extend the Maturity Date by one year, in exchange for which the Company will agree to extend the termination date of warrants held by the Holder by one year, pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Extension of Warrant Agreement to be entered into between the Company and the Holder simultaneously with this Amendment (the “Extension Agreement”).
  
 AGREEMENT
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree to the following.
  
 1. Amendment of Maturity Date. Subject to and in exchange for the Company’s entry into the Extension Agreement, the Maturity Date of the Debenture is hereby amended to September 30, 2023.
  
 2. Effect of Amendment. The parties hereto agree that the amendments described above are effective retroactively to September 30, 2022. Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, the terms of the Debenture remain in full force and effect.
  
 3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with the U.S. federal ESIGN Act of 2000, e.g., www.docusign.com) or other transmission method and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.
  
 	 Company:
	  
	 Holder:
	  

	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	 KNOW LABS, INC.
	 CLAYTON A. STRUVE
	  

	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	 By:
	 /s/ Ronald P. Erickson
	 By:
	  /s/ Clayton A. Struve
	  

	 Name:
	 Ronald P. Erickson 
	  
	 Clayton A. Struve
	  

	 Title:
	 Chairman
### Proposed Provision: B3.12. Use an annualized "mini-PIA" formula beginning with retired workers newly eligible in 2030. For each indexed earnings year, compute an individual AIME and an individual PIA. Sum these individual PIAs for the 40 highest years of indexed earnings and divide that total amount by 37 to get the PIA for this provision. Phase-in over five years, meaning that in 2030, 80 percent of the benefit would be based on the old 35-year average PIA formula and 20 percent on the new mini-PIA formula, shifting by 20 percentage points each year until 100 percent is based on the new mini-PIA formula for those attaining age 62 in 2034. Disabled worker benefits are unchanged under this provision.

back
### Proposed Provision: E3.19. Increase the taxable maximum such that 90 percent of earnings would be subject to the payroll tax (phased in linearly from 2025-2030). Provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed, using a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from additional annual earnings taxed over the current-law taxable maximum; and (2) a formula factor of 2.5 percent on this newly computed "AIME+".
Exhibit 31.1
       a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 16, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Lewis W. Dickey, Jr.Lewis W. Dickey, Jr.Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ransom J. Horton, Appellant, v. George H. Dorr and others, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Consorteum Holdings,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof, I, Craig R. Fielding, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.           Theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

Date:  November 7, 2012
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Coverage of Employment or Earnings, or Inclusion of Other Sources of Revenue

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						F1: Starting in 2024, cover newly hired State and local government employees.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 0.19* 0.00 * 0%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

August 1, 2023

* A change in the investment of trust fund reserves to include some equities affects the size of all summarized measures because increased 

"present-value" discounting reduces the weight on values for more distant future years. As a result, the magnitude of the current-law actuarial 

balance and the summarized effects of most proposals is reduced. Therefore, the size of the change in the long-range actuarial balance 

indicated here cannot be interpreted directly as a reduction in the shortfall. The actual reduction in the shortfall from equity investment 

depends on the amount of reserves that are available for investment throughout the period. For example, if provisions to change revenue or 

scheduled benefits resulted in a purely pay-as-you-go system (reserves just above zero throughout the period), then investment in equities 

would have no effect on the actuarial balance.

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Trust Fund Investment in Equities

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: G4. Invest 15 percent of the OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves in equities (phased in 

2024-2033), assuming an ultimate 5.8 percent annual real rate of return on equities.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency Provisions | Provisions Affecting Individual AccountsUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |
#### STATE v. GILBERT BARFIELD.

(Filed 28 November, 1945.)

Appeal by defendant from *Sinh, J.,*at March Term, 1945, of Scot-LAND.

Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging defendant with an assault with a deadly weapon, with intent to kill one James Haywood.

Verdict: Guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. Judgment: Tobe confined in the common jail of Scotland County and assigned to work for a period of two years, as provided by law.

The defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Aitorneys-General Rhodes, Moody, and Tucher for the State.*

*Z. V. Morgan for defendant.*

*773Per Curiam.

We have carefully considered tbe exceptions presented, and do not find any of sufficient merit to justify interference with tbe verdict below.

No error.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1




The Board of Directors
SBS Technologies, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements of SBS Technologies, Inc. of our report dated August 4, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SBS Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 1999, and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ending June 30, 1999, which report
appears in the June 30, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of SBS Technologies,
Inc..

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
               Registration
      Form     Statement No.    Description
      ----     -------------    -----------
<S>            <C>              <C>
      S-8      333-23053        SBS Technologies, Inc. 1996 Employee Stock Purchase
                                Plan and the SBS Technologies, Inc. 1997 Employee
                                Incentive Stock Option Plan

      S-8      333-98558        SBS Technologies, Inc. 1992 Employee Incentive Stock
                                Option Plan;  SBS Technologies, Inc. 1993 Incentive
                                Stock Option Plan; SBS Technologies, Inc. 1993 Director
                                And Officer Stock Option Plan; SBS Technologies, Inc.
                                1995 Incentive Stock Option Plan;  SBS Technologies,
                                Inc. 1996 Incentive Stock Option Plan

      S-8      333-68945        SBS Technologies, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Equity Incentive
                                Plan(the "Plan")

      S-3      333-20129        SBS Technologies, Inc. Common Stock
</TABLE>

                                                 /S/ KPMG LLP


Albuquerque, New Mexico
September 21, 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE

COMPANY, RSUI IN D EMNITY

COMPANY, and BERKLEY

INSURANCE COMPANY

,

Plaintiffs Below

, Appellant s

,

v.

DAVID H. MURDOCK, C.

MICHAEL CARTER, DOLE FOOD

COMPANY, INC. and DFC

HOLDINGS, LLC

,

Defendants Below,

App ellee s

. §

§

§ No. 144, 2018

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court of

§ the State of Delaware

§

§ C.A. No. N1 6C

- 01

- 104

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Submitted: March 2 8 , 2018

Decided: April 6 , 2018

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 6 th day of April 2018

, having considered the notice and supplemental

notice of app eal from an interlocutory order under Supreme Court Rule 42 , it appears

to the Court that:

(1) This interlocutory appeal arises from a Superior Court opinion granting

in part and denying in part the plaintiffs below

- appellants ’ , Navigators Insurance

Company, RSUI Indemnity Company, and Berkley Insurance Company (“the

Insurers”), motion for summary judgme nt. 1 The Insurers request an interlocutory

1 Arch Ins. Co. v. Murdock , 2018 WL 1129110 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2018).2

appeal from the parts of the opinion holding : (i) Delaware law applied to the

directors and officers liability policies at issue; and (ii) Delaware public policy did

not prohibit the Insurers from paying for the fraud of the insureds

.

(2) On March 9 , 2017, t he Insurer s filed an application for certification to

take an interlocutory appeal. The defendants below

- appellees, David H. Murdock,

C. Michael Carter, Dole Food Company, Inc. and DFS Holdings, LLC (“the

Insure ds”), opposed the application

. On March 28, 2018 , the Superior Court denied

the application after determining certification was not warranted under the principles

and criteria of Supreme Court Rule 42(b)

. 2

(3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound

discretion of the Court. 3 In the exercise of our discretion, we have concluded that

the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for

certification under Rule 42 (b) and should be refused.

NOW, THEREFOR E, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory

appeal is REFUSED

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

2 Arch Ins. Co. v. Murdock , 2018 WL 1560294 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2018). The Superior

Court corrected the order on April 2, 2018.

3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and GraphsUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Taxation of Benefits | Description of Proposed Provision:      Tax Social Security benefits in a manner similar to private pension income beginning in 2006.  Phase out the lower-income thresholds during 2006-2015. |
|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2005 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |
## Popular Baby Names

- Popular Baby Names
- Background information
- Number of applications for Social Security cards

Beyond the Top 1000 Names

To provide *popular* names and maintain an acceptable performance level on our servers, we provide only the top 1000 names through our forms. However, we provide almost all names for researchers interested in naming trends. 

To safeguard privacy, we exclude from these files certain names that would indicate, or would allow the ability to determine, names with fewer than 5 occurrences in any geographic area. We provide these data on both a national and state-specific basis, in two separate collections of files, each zipped into a single file. The format of the data in the three file collections is described in a "*readme*" file contained in the respective zip files. 
        - National data  (7Mb) 
        - State-specific data   (22Mb) 
        - Territory-specific data   (320Kb)
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

September 7, 2018

N o. 04

- 17

- 00815

- CR

Issac WILLIAMS
, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR8370B Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding


### ORDER

After w e granted the State’s first motion for an extension of time to file the brief , the State’s brief was due on September 5, 2018

. On the due date, the State filed its second motion for a thirty

- day extension of time to file its brief

. The State’s motion is GRANTED. The State’s brief is due on October 5 , 201 8

. Any further motion for extension of time to file the State’s brief is discouraged.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of September, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano,

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 M 

arch 26, 2021

Order 

Clerk

March 26, 2021

161869(43)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 161869

v COA: 353243

Emmet CC: 19-004943-FH

LUCUS WILLIAM COVEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Emmet County Lakeshore 

Association et al. to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted 

on March 25, 2021, is accepted for filing.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5443 Filed: 01/22/20 Entered: 01/22/20 13:14:13 Page 1 of

5
Exhibit A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5443 Filed: 01/22/20 Entered: 01/22/20 13:14:13 Page 2 of

5
Exhibit A

Notice Parties Service List

Served via first class mail

NAME NOTICE NAME ADDRESS 1 CITY STATE POSTAL C

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Stephen Karotkin 767 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10153‐011

In re: PG&E Corporation, et al.Case No. 19‐30088 (DM) Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5443 Filed: 01/22/20 Entered: 01/22/20 13:14:13 Page 

5
Exhibit B 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5443 Filed: 01/22/20 Entered: 01/22/20 13:14:13 Page 4 of

5
Form TRANSC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

California Northern Bankruptcy Court

In re Debtor(s):

PG&E Corporation

Case No.: 19−30088 DM 11

Chapter: 11

NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT

AND DEADLINES RELATED TO RESTRICTION AND REDACTION

A transcript of the proceeding held on January 14, 2020 was filed on January 15, 2020. The following deadlines

apply:

The parties have until Wednesday, January 22, 2020 to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of

this transcript. The deadline for filing a request for redaction is Wednesday, February 5, 2020.

If a request for redaction is filed, the redacted transcript is due Tuesday, February 18, 2020.

If no such notice is filed, the transcript may be made available for remote electronic access upon expiration of the

restriction period, which is Tuesday, April 14, 2020, unless extended by court order.

To review the transcript for redaction purposes, you may purchase a copy from the transcriber,

Jason Gottlieb

Attn: Jason Gottlieb, Dir. of Tran. Ops.

7227 N 16th St. #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

or you may view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.

Dated: 1/21/20 For the Court:

Edward J. Emmons

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

SRF 39067

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5443 Filed: 01/22/20 Entered: 01/22/20 13:14:13 Page 5 of

5
Exhibit 4.1



 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


December 13, 2022


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2143


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2143 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-268163 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 





	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0449

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

AMANDA SHARYCE WALTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 25, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 19 2024

09/19/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0449
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 29, 2014

p0922

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2014

148390(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 148390 

COA: 318615

Wayne CC: 03-009634-FC

DESHAWN TYRELL MASON, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 24, 2014 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.