alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.B



  
 EXHIBIT (10)(b)

  
 OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY 
  









 [Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company Letterhead] 
  
 January 24, 2005 
  
 Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company 
 4333 Edgewood Road NE 
 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001 
  

	Re:	Advisors Edge® NY Variable Annuity 

 TFLIC Separate Account VNY 
 Registration on Form N-4 
  
 Dear Sir/Madam: 
  
 With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the basis of such examination, have the following
opinions: 
  
 Fees and charges deducted under the Advisors Edge® NY Variable Annuity policies are those deemed necessary
to appropriately reflect: 
  

	(1)	the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the policies, 

  

	(2)	the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the policies, 

  

	(3)	the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management of the policies and that provides for a reasonable margin of profit. 

  
 Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account include:

  

	(i)	Service Charge and Administrative Charge 

  

	(ii)	Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E) 

  

	(iii)	Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable) 

  









 Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company 
 January 24, 2005 
 Page 2 
  
 The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (iii) is established in the pricing of the Advisors Edge® NY Variable Annuity, to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is
within the range of industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products. 
  
 Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses (as well as major product and/or systems development expenses)
are incurred “up front” and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years’ charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the policies in the pricing process. 
  
 Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in the aggregate,
are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company. 
  
 I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to the registration statement. 
  

	
	
	 /s/ Tim Bennett

	 Tim Bennett, ASA, MAAA

	 Assistant Actuary

	 Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company
§ 189.45-1 Notice required. ( a ) No repairs or alterations affecting the stability or safety of the vessel with regard to the hull, machinery, and equipment shall be made without the knowledge of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( b ) Drawings of alterations shall be approved before work is started unless deemed unnecessary by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( c ) Drawings will not be required for repairs in kind.
( d ) Notice is not required for repairs or alterations to scientific equipment where the stability or safety of the vessel with regard to the hull and machinery or equipment is not affected.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          23,109
<SECURITIES>                                    11,160
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,624
<PP&E>                                           2,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,151
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,946
<SALES>                                          7,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,637
<CGS>                                              583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,178)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        34
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,212)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,212)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.95)


</TABLE>
# C_2013225EN.01003301.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/33

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-193/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Designation of vulnerable zones - Excessive nitrate content - Eutrophication - Obligation of four-yearly revision)

2013/C 225/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) and Annex I thereto — Incomplete identification of vulnerable zones — Excessive nitrate content — Eutrophication — Incorrect four-yearly revision

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to designate as vulnerable zones a number of zones characterised by the presence of surface and groundwater bodies which are, or may be, affected by excessive nitrate content and/or eutrophication, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to designate as vulnerable zones a number of zones characterised by the presence of surface and groundwater bodies which are, or may be, affected by excessive nitrate content and/or eutrophication, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, and Annex I thereto;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

1

---
§ 176.400 General. ( a ) An inspection is required before the issuance of a Certificate of Inspection. Such an inspection for certification is not made until after receipt of the application for inspection required by § 176.105.
( b ) Upon receipt of a written application for inspection, the cognizant OCMI assigns a marine inspector to inspect the vessel for compliance with this subchapter at a time and place mutually agreed upon by the OCMI and the owner, managing operator, or representative thereof.
( c ) The owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof shall be present during the inspection.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20557, May 7, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51356, Sept. 30, 1997]
|For immediate release
|---------------------



|The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday announced its approval of the applications under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act, the Bank Merger Act, and section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act for Fifth Third Bancorp and Fifth Third Financial Corporation, both in Cincinnati, Ohio, to acquire First National Bankshares of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary bank, First National Bank of Florida, both in Naples, Florida.Attached is the Board's Order relating to this action.Attachment (64 KB PDF)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004 Orders on banking applications

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SOUTH JERSEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, INC. AT AND FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,839
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             297
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,250
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     49,694
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         119,906
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           114,596
<LOANS>                                        145,463
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,090
<DEPOSITS>                                     240,545
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,507
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,257
<LONG-TERM>                                     27,576
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 328,090
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,677
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,918
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,595
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,437
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,914
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,681
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       15
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (36)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,145
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,145
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       727
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.94
<LOANS-NON>                                        365
<LOANS-PAST>                                        23
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    399
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,044
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       29
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,030
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,030
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            226


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

THOMAS E. GIRON, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

DWIGHT NEVEN; AND THE STATE OF 

NEVADA, 

Respondents. 

No. 70575 

FILED 

JUL 2 8 2016 

TRACE K LINDEMAN 

CLERK OF UPREME COURT 

BY 5- 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Pursuant to appellant's notice of withdraw of appeal filed on 

June 21, 2016, this appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

BY: AlLcidi t 

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge 

Thomas E. Giron 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

101-1547 .sea 5SloG
**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**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the “Quarterly Report”) of

UAGH, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I,
Daniel Drummond, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
      of
      the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.




By: 
              /s/ 
Daniel DrummondDaniel Drummond
              Chairman,
                Chief Executive Officer and President
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              Dated
                this20thday
                of
May, 2008
Dec 3, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Addendum of aircraft for operation under approved Exemption No. 13333, Regulatory 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1848 (Exemption Request Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform 

Act and 14 C.F.R. Part 11of the Federal Aviation Regulations)

Dear Sir or Madam:

WinTec Arrowmaker, Inc. (WinTec) respectfully requests an Addendum for the DJI S1000 and

the 3DR-Aero to our previously approved exemption. WinTec will adhere to the same rules and 

regulation as previously approved for Exemption No. 13333, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-

1848.

Reference approved exemptions:

DJI S1000: Exemption No. 11467, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0261

3DR-AERO: Exemption No. 11617, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0549

Appendix A: Manufacturer Small Unmanned Aerial System Information

Joseph T. (Todd) Madison, Chief Pilot

WinTec Arrowmaker

MadisonT@arrowmaker.com,

(813) 805-2714
Appendix A:

DJI S1000
3DR-Aero

Specifications:

Autopilot: 3DR Pixhawk V2.4.5 

Firmware: ArduPlane 3.1.1 

GPS: 3DR u-blox GPS with Compass (LEA-6H module, 5 Hz update) 

Telemetry radio: 3DR Radio v2 (915 mHz or 433 mHz) 

Motors: Tiger Motor AT2820-7 830 kV 
Frame: Fixed wing 

Propellers: Gemfan 11x7 

Battery: 4S 6000 mAh 35C lithium polymer 

Aircraft weight (with battery): 6.8 lbs (3 kg) 

Aircraft dimensions: 74 in (188 cm) wingspan, 51 in (129 cm) length 

Case dimensions: 60.75 in x 14.5 in x 15.5 in (154 cm x 37 cm x 39 cm) 

Payload capacity: 1.1 lbs (500 g) 

Radio range: .6 miles* (1 km)

Flight time: 40 min* 

Maximum operational wind speed: 25 mph (11 m/s) 

Landing accuracy: 6.5 ft latitude x 131 ft longitude (2 m x 40 m)

Recommended flight speed: 33 mph (15 m/s) 

Camera: Canon SX260 12.1 megapixel 

Camera software: 3DR EAI 1.0 

Area coverage (single flight): 250 acres* (1 km2 )

Orthomosaic accuracy: 3-16 ft (1-5 m) 

Ground sampling distance: 2 inches per pixel* (5 cm per pixel)

Image processing software: Pix4Dmapper LT 3DR Edition (Windows only)

*Figures reflect estimated values at ideal operating conditions. 

Environmental conditions can affect light time, range, area 

coverage, and ground sampling distance.
---

---

EXHIBIT 14.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Cimatron Ltd. on Form S-8,
File number 333-12458, of our report dated March 12, 2006 of the consolidated financial
statements of Cimatron Ltd. included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2005.

/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.
Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Tel Aviv, Israel
June 28, 2006



---

---
# C_2013344EN.01002901.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12)

(Joined Cases C-216/12 and C-217/12) (1)

1

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg - Grant of a parental leave allowance - Concept of a ‘family benefit’)

2013/C 344/49

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

Appellant:

Respondents: Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12)

Respondents:

Re:

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of point 1 of Section A of Annex II to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, concluded on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Concept of a ‘family benefit’ — Permissibility of national legislation providing for the grant of a parental leave allowance — Swiss national residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 and as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a parental leave allowance, such as the allowance provided for under Luxembourg legislation, constitutes a ‘family benefit’ within the meaning of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

1

---
#### § 183.420 Navigation lights.

All vessels must have navigation lights that are in compliance with the applicable sections of the International and Inland Navigation Rules, except that a vessel of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length must also have navigation lights that meet UL 1104, “Standards for Marine Navigation Lights,” or other standard specified by the Commandant.
#### Joseph R. Dohner, appellee, v. John M. Barr, appellant.

Filed July 1, 1916.

No. 18889.

Appeal: Conflicting Evidence. “Where the evidence is conflicting and the judgment is supported by competent evidence, it will not he disturbed, even though a different conclusion might have been reached.” *Burwell Irrigation Go. v. Lashmett,*59 Neb. 605.

Appeal from the district court for Lancaster county: Albert J. Cornish, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*B. O.*Williams, for appellant.

*W. C. Brampton, contra.*

Fawcett, J.

Action to recover a balance of $50 for money loaned. Plaintiff recovered, and defendant appeals.

The errors assigned are that the court by its instructions to the jury eliminated defendant’s plea of payment;.that the court refused to give certain instructions requested by defendant; that the court neglected to give any instruction covering defendant’s theory that the money had been paid; and that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. The evidence is in sharp conflict. It would have sustained a verdict either way. The jury accepted the testimony offered by plaintiff, and an experienced district court, who saw the witnesses upon the stand and heard them testify, approved the verdict by entering judgment upon it. This must be held conclusive on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence.

We have examined the instructions given by the court, also those requested by defendant, and are unable to discover any error either of omission or commission. The defendant’s plea of payment was properly submitted. Everything requested by defendant in instructions refused, *173which was proper to go to the jury, was covered by the court’s instructions. The instructions we think fairly covered defendant’s theory that the money had been repaid.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment .of the district court is

Affirmed.

Sedgwick, J., not sitting.