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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH LEE GARDNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:06-cr-00422-PJM-1; 8:09-cv-01508-PJM)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lee Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Noel Glatfelter, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Gardner seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Gardner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ron Moskovitz, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

          (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 company, 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) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions
     contained in SEC Release 34-47986]

          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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; and

          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
     the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting;
     and

     5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (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 company's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
     control over financial reporting.

Date: December 24, 2003

/s/  RON MOSKOVITZ
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron Moskovitz,
Chief Financial Officer,
Amdocs Management Limited
§ 61.5 Certificates and ratings issued under this part. ( a ) The following certificates are issued under this part to an applicant who satisfactorily accomplishes the training and certification requirements for the certificate sought: ( 1 ) Pilot certificates— ( i ) Student pilot.
( ii ) Sport pilot.
( iii ) Recreational pilot.
( iv ) Private pilot.
( v ) Commercial pilot.
( vi ) Airline transport pilot.
( 2 ) Flight instructor certificates.
( 3 ) Ground instructor certificates.
( b ) The following ratings are placed on a pilot certificate (other than student pilot) when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and certification requirements for the rating sought: ( 1 ) Aircraft category ratings— ( i ) Airplane.
( ii ) Rotorcraft.
( iii ) Glider.
( iv ) Lighter-than-air.
( v ) Powered-lift.
( vi ) Powered parachute.
( vii ) Weight-shift-control aircraft.
( 2 ) Airplane class ratings— ( i ) Single-engine land.
( ii ) Multiengine land.
( iii ) Single-engine sea.
( iv ) Multiengine sea.
( 3 ) Rotorcraft class ratings— ( i ) Helicopter.
( ii ) Gyroplane.
( 4 ) Lighter-than-air class ratings— ( i ) Airship.
( ii ) Balloon.
( 5 ) Weight-shift-control aircraft class ratings— ( i ) Weight-shift-control aircraft land.
( ii ) Weight-shift-control aircraft sea.
( 6 ) Powered parachute class ratings— ( i ) Powered parachute land.
( ii ) Powered parachute sea.
( 7 ) Aircraft type ratings— ( i ) Large aircraft other than lighter-than-air.
( ii ) Turbojet-powered airplanes.
( iii ) Other aircraft type ratings specified by the Administrator through the aircraft type certification procedures.
( iv ) Second-in-command pilot type rating for aircraft that is certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least two pilots.
( 8 ) Instrument ratings (on private and commercial pilot certificates only)— ( i ) Instrument—Airplane.
( ii ) Instrument—Helicopter.
( iii ) Instrument—Powered-lift.
( c ) The following ratings are placed on a flight instructor certificate when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and certification requirements for the rating sought: ( 1 ) Aircraft category ratings— ( i ) Airplane.
( ii ) Rotorcraft.
( iii ) Glider.
( iv ) Powered-lift.
( 2 ) Airplane class ratings— ( i ) Single-engine.
( ii ) Multiengine.
( 3 ) Rotorcraft class ratings— ( i ) Helicopter.
( ii ) Gyroplane.
( 4 ) Instrument ratings— ( i ) Instrument—Airplane.
( ii ) Instrument—Helicopter.
( iii ) Instrument—Powered-lift.
( 5 ) Sport pilot rating.
( d ) The following ratings are placed on a ground instructor certificate when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and certification requirements for the rating sought: ( 1 ) Basic.
( 2 ) Advanced.
( 3 ) Instrument.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44864, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 61-113, 70 FR 45271, Aug. 4, 2005]
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 7, 2010

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD

, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 07

‐ 3806

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

L.C. BELL,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 07 CR 20027

Michael P. McCuskey,

Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

L.C. Bell pled guilty to possession of more than five grams of cocaine base with

intent to distribute and possession of a firearm by a felon. The district court sentenced Bell

to 150 months’ imprisonment and eight years of supervised release on the drug count, and

120 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release on the firearm count, to

run concurrently. In United States v. Bell

, 585 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 2009), we affirmed Bell’s

convictions but issued a limited remand to allow the district court to determine whether it

would have imposed a different sentence in light of Kimbrough v. United States

, 128 S. Ct. 558

(2007). On September 27, 2010, the district court advised us that it would have imposed the

same sentence even if it had known that it could take the crack/cocaine powder disparity

into account. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
ex10-4.htm


    
      
        EXHIBIT 10.4

      

    

     

    AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE

    TO
THE

    EG&G
TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN

    (2007
Restatement)

    


    The
EG&G Technical Services, Inc. Employees Retirement Plan, as restated
effective January 1, 2007, is hereby amended effective as of the date set forth
below.

     

    
      	
              1.  

            	
              Section
      4.1(c) of the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2009 to
      read in its entirety as follows:

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              “(c)

            	
              Notwithstanding
      any other provision of this Plan to the contrary, the Accrued Benefit of a
      Participant as determined under Section 4.1(b) shall not be less than the
      Accrued Benefit of such Participant on December 31, 2003 as calculated
      under the provisions of the Plan as in effect on December 31, 2003 prior
      to this Amendment.

            


    

     

    Subject
to the provisions of Section 5.1, the monthly normal Retirement Income payable
upon retirement on or after Normal Retirement Date of a Participant who
participated in the EG&G Mound Applied Technologies, Inc. Salaried
Employees’ Pension Plan or the EG&G Mound Applied Technologies, Inc. Hourly
Paid Employees’ Pension Plan (the “Mound Plans”) prior to participating in the
Prior Plan prior to September 30, 1997 shall be equal to his Accrued Benefit,
subject to adjustment as provided in this Section 4.1(c).  Such
Accrued Benefit shall first be increased by adding thereto the Participant’s
monthly accrued benefits under the Mound Plans, determined in accordance with
the provisions thereof in effect on September 30, 1997.  Such adjusted
Accrued Benefit shall then be offset by the Accrued Benefit attributable to
service described in Section 1.22, based on Average Earnings as of the last date
of such service.  The resulting adjustments shall be indicated in
Appendix A hereto.  Any monthly accrued benefits payable under the
Mound Plans shall be payable to the Participant pursuant and subject to the
terms and conditions of the Mound Plans in effect as of September 30, 1997,
including (but not limited to) the timing, form of benefit and “rule of 80”
provisions of the Mound Plans.”

     

    


     

    
      
        	EG&G
      Technical Services, Inc.	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                Dated:  September
      17, 2009   

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ H.
      Thomas Hicks	 
	 	 	Title:
      Vice President	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 


      

    

     

     

     

    
      
        i
L

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1963

SCALE 1:24000

MILE
a : —— =
a 00 ( 1000 200 ) 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
IGN & -
( 7 KILOMETER
E = i ; wf
1° 7
14s" || J2¢5 wis |
amis] / |
yf NEW MEXICO.
if
/
/ |

COAL RESOURCE OCCURRENCE MAP OF THE FLORA VISTA QUADRANGLE,
SAN JUAN COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

BY
DAMES & MOORE
1979

—d

Compiled in 1979

OPEN FILE REPORT 79-1116
PLATE 4 OF 8

EXPLANATION
‘0
5
ISOPACHS OF THE FRUITLAND 1 COAL BED -
Showing thickness, in feet. Isopach

interval 5 feet (1.5 meters).

O13

DRILL HOLE - Showing thickness of the
Fruitland 1 coal bed, in feet.

To convert feet to meters, multiply feet
by 0.3048.

Fruitland coal beds isopached as a single bed
on this map are equivalent in stratigraphic
position but may not be continuous.

This map was prepared under contract to the U.S.
Geological Survey and has not been edited for
conformity with Geological Survey editorial stand-
ards. Opinions and conclusions expressed herein
do not necessarily represent those of the Geo-
logical Survey.

PLATE 4

ISOPACH MAP OF THE
FRUITLAND | COAL BED
#### § 460.41 Scope.

This subpart establishes requirements for space flight participants on board a vehicle whose operator is licensed or permitted under this chapter.
§ 27.1323 Airspeed indicating system. ( a ) Each airspeed indicating instrument must be calibrated to indicate true airspeed (at sea level with a standard atmosphere) with a minimum practicable instrument calibration error when the corresponding pitot and static pressures are applied.
( b ) The airspeed indicating system must be calibrated in flight at forward speeds of 20 knots and over.
( c ) At each forward speed above 80 percent of the climbout speed, the airspeed indicator must indicate true airspeed, at sea level with a standard atmosphere, to within an allowable installation error of not more than the greater of— ( 1 ) ±3 percent of the calibrated airspeed; or
( 2 ) Five knots.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-13, 42 FR 36972, July 18, 1977]
§ 440.11 Duration of coverage for licensed launch, including suborbital launch, or permitted activities; modifications. ( a ) Insurance coverage required under § 440.9, or other form of financial responsibility, shall attach when a licensed launch or permitted activity starts, and remain in full force and effect as follows: ( 1 ) Until completion of licensed launch or permitted activities at a launch or reentry site; and
( 2 ) For orbital launch, until the later of— ( i ) Thirty days following payload separation, or attempted payload separation in the event of a payload separation anomaly; or
( ii ) Thirty days from ignition of the launch vehicle.
( 3 ) For a suborbital launch, until the later of— ( i ) Motor impact and payload recovery; or
( ii ) The FAA's determination that risk to third parties and Government property as a result of licensed launch or permitted activities is sufficiently small that financial responsibility is no longer necessary. That determination is made through the risk analysis conducted before the launch to determine MPL and specified in a license or permit order.
( b ) Financial responsibility required under this part may not be replaced, canceled, changed, withdrawn, or in any way modified to reduce the limits of liability or the extent of coverage, nor expire by its own terms, prior to the time specified in a license or permit order, unless the FAA is notified at least 30 days in advance and expressly approves the modification.
§ 25.925 Propeller clearance. Unless smaller clearances are substantiated, propeller clearances with the airplane at maximum weight, with the most adverse center of gravity, and with the propeller in the most adverse pitch position, may not be less than the following: ( a ) *Ground clearance.* There must be a clearance of at least seven inches (for each airplane with nose wheel landing gear) or nine inches (for each airplane with tail wheel landing gear) between each propeller and the ground with the landing gear statically deflected and in the level takeoff, or taxiing attitude, whichever is most critical. In addition, there must be positive clearance between the propeller and the ground when in the level takeoff attitude with the critical tire(s) completely deflated and the corresponding landing gear strut bottomed.
( b ) *Water clearance.* There must be a clearance of at least 18 inches between each propeller and the water, unless compliance with § 25.239(a) can be shown with a lesser clearance.
( c ) *Structural clearance.* There must be— ( 1 ) At least one inch radial clearance between the blade tips and the airplane structure, plus any additional radial clearance necessary to prevent harmful vibration;
( 2 ) At least one-half inch longitudinal clearance between the propeller blades or cuffs and stationary parts of the airplane; and
( 3 ) Positive clearance between other rotating parts of the propeller or spinner and stationary parts of the airplane.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29784, July 20, 1990]
#### Frank Paccione, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Manuel Paccione, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Home Indemnity Company, Respondent.

Argued March 11, 1937;

decided March 25, 1937.

*644
      *John F. X. Finn*and *John A. Blake*for appellant.

*Daniel Mungall, Fred H. Rees*and *David D. Miller*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
ex10-1.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

    
 

    
      


      

       

      
        	 
      	
                Matthew
      K. Rose

                Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer

              	
                Burlington
      Northern

                Santa
      Fe Corporation

                P.O.
      Box 961052

                Fart
      Worth, TX 76161-0052

                 

                2650
      Lou Merit Drive

                Fart
      Worth, TX 76131-2830

                 

                tel
      817.867.6100

                fax
      817.352.7430 

                matthew.rose@bnsf.com

              


      

      


      


      November
6, 2009

      


      


      


      Mr. Roger
P. Nober

      Executive
Vice President-Law and Secretary

      Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation

      2650 Lou
Menk Drive

      Fort
Worth TX 76131-2830

      


      Dear
Roger:

      


      Reference
is made to (i) the Amended and Restated Change in Control Agreement, dated
December 31, 2007, between Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (the
“Company”) and myself (the “Change in Control Agreement”), (ii) the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe 1999 Stock Incentive Plan and my award agreements thereunder
(collectively, the “Stock Incentive Plan”), (iii) the Retirement Benefit
Agreement, dated April 19 2002, between the Company and myself (the “Retirement
Benefit Agreement” and, collectively with the Change in Control Agreement and
the Stock Incentive Plan, the “Benefit Agreements”), and (iv) the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated November 2, 2009, by and among Berkshire Hathaway Inc., R.
Acquisition Company, LLC and the Company (the “Merger Agreement”).

      


      The
Change in Control Agreement and Section 12.6 of the Stock Incentive Plan provide
me with the right to receive certain severance benefits and accelerated vesting
of equity awards if among other things, I terminate my employment for “good
reason” in connection with a “change in control” of the Company. Paragraph 3 of
the Retirement Benefit Agreement provides that 1 will receive additional service
credit for purposes of my retirement benefits if, among other things, my
employment terminates for any reason within certain time periods following a
“change in control” of the Company. The transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement will constitute a change in control for purposes of the Benefit
Agreements.

      


      I hereby
waive my right to receive any compensation or benefits payable under the Change
in Control Agreement or Section 12.6 of the Stock Incentive Plan in the event
that I terminate my employment for “good reason” in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. In addition, I hereby waive
my right to receive any compensation or benefits payable under paragraph 3 of
the Retirement Benefit Agreement in the event that I terminate my employment for
any reason following the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.

      


      Sincerely,

      


      


      /s/
Matthew K. Rose

      


      


      Matthew
K. Rose
1

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Omni Hotel

675 L Street, San Diego, California

July 18-19, 2006

AGENDA

Meeting Theme: Environmental Protection and Border Security

Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

July 18, 2006

8:00 a.m. Registration

8:30 a.m. Welcome Remarks

Rafael DeLeon, Director, EPA Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Paul Ganster, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Opening Remarks

Hon. Denise Moreno Ducheny, California State Senate, 40th District

Secretary Enrique Villegas, Secretariat for Environmental Protection, 

Baja California

Self Introductions

9:00 a.m. Speaker Presentations Begin

9:00 a.m. – Michael Hance, Agent, Customs and Border Protection, Department of 

Homeland Security

Security Activities along the U.S.-Mexico Border

9:45 a.m. – Diane Takvorian, Environmental Health Coalition

Community Right-to-Know and Border Security

10:30 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m. – Ricardo Castellanos and Michael P. Dorsey, 

Border 2012 CA/Baja CA Emergency Response Taskforce Officials 

Emergency Response and Border Security: The Environmental Connection

11:30 a.m. – Chris Aldridge, Director, Border Technology and Research Center 

Advanced Technology: Border Security with a Light Environmental Footprint 
2

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Omni Hotel

675 L Street, San Diego, California

July 18-19, 2006

12:15 p.m. Public Comment Session 

12:30 p.m. Lunch

2:00 p.m. Speaker Presentations Continue

2:00 p.m. – Flavio Olivieri, Consejo Consultivo

Update from Mexico’s Northern Border Environmental Advisors

2:45 p.m. – Ing. José Luis Sánchez, Grupo Ambiental del Noroeste 

Building Security and Environmental Protection into the Supply Chain 

3:30 p.m. Break

3:45 p.m. – Mike White, Conservation Biology Institute 

Potential Positive/ Negative Impacts of the Triple Fence on Flora and Fauna

4:30 p.m. – Tina Terrell, Forest Supervisor, Cleveland National Forest

Effects of Undocumented Human Crossings on National Forest Work

5:15 p.m. – Additional Business

5:30 p.m. – Day One of Meeting Ends

(see next page for details of Business Meeting on Day Two)
3

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Omni Hotel

675 L Street, San Diego, California

July 18-19, 2006

July 19, 2006

BUSINESS MEETING 

7:30 a.m. Registration

8:00 a.m. Welcome

8:05 a.m. Discussion/Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting

8:15 a.m. Tenth Report Preparation Report-Outs

- Context Workgroup

- Human Crossings Workgroup

- Materials Crossings Workgroup

- Next Steps

9:00 a.m. Discussion: Role of federal agency representatives

9:45 a.m. Break

10:00 a.m. Board Member Report-outs

11:00 a.m. Discussion: Draft Comment Letter: Triple Fence

11:15 a.m. Discussion: Reporting to the President and Congress

11:45 a.m. Other Business

12:00 a.m. Business Meeting/Day Two of Meeting Ends

7/6/06