alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dov Baharav, 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: September 21, 2004

/S/  DOV BAHARAV
---------------------------------------------------------
Dov Baharav,
Chief Executive Officer,
Amdocs Management Limited
## SERVED: January 17, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF



### THOMAS BRAY FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0621 

### NOTICE OF TENTATIVE HEARING DATES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thattestimony and evidence will TENTATIVELYbe heard and consideredthe week ofMarch 10 through 14, 2014, inclusive. We will notbe able to confirm a courtroom until on or about February 1, 2014 at whichtime we will set specific hearingtimes and places.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List



### 1

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY Lisa J
.. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel, AWP-7 Western-Pacific Region Federal AviationAdministration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7110 FAX: 310-725-6816 Thomas H. Bray, Respondent 30382 U.S. Highway 60-89, #11 Wickenburg, AZ 85390 TEL: 901-226-0142 E-MAIL: multigrainscpt@msn.com The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMSNo. FAA-2013-0621 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
# Amtsblatt C 198/5. A

| | ISSN 1725-2407 |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 198 |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 47. Jahrgang5. August 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2407

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 198

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

47. Jahrgang5. August 2004

---

| Informationsnummer | Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Mitteilungen |
| | Kommission |
| 2004/C 198/1 | Euro-Wechselkurs | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Inhalt

Seite

I   Mitteilungen

Kommission

2004/C 198/1

Euro-Wechselkurs

1

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

I Mitteilungen

Kommission

| 5.8.2004 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2004

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 198/1

---

Euro-Wechselkurs (1)

4. August 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 Euro=

| | Währung | Kurs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US-Dollar | 1,1983 |
| JPY | Japanischer Yen | 133,72 |
| DKK | Dänische Krone | 7,4352 |
| GBP | Pfund Sterling | 0,65960 |
| SEK | Schwedische Krone | 9,1938 |
| CHF | Schweizer Franken | 1,5394 |
| ISK | Isländische Krone | 86,33 |
| NOK | Norwegische Krone | 8,4145 |
| BGN | Bulgarischer Lew | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Zypern-Pfund | 0,57940 |
| CZK | Tschechische Krone | 31,769 |
| EEK | Estnische Krone | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Ungarischer Forint | 250,14 |
| LTL | Litauischer Litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Lettischer Lat | 0,6527 |
| MTL | Maltesische Lira | 0,4245 |
| PLN | Polnischer Zloty | 4,4350 |
| ROL | Rumänischer Leu | 40 954 |
| SIT | Slowenischer Tolar | 240,0100 |
| SKK | Slowakische Krone | 40,120 |
| TRL | Türkische Lira | 1 782 400 |
| AUD | Australischer Dollar | 1,7079 |
| CAD | Kanadischer Dollar | 1,5844 |
| HKD | Hongkong-Dollar | 9,3465 |
| NZD | Neuseeländischer Dollar | 1,8624 |
| SGD | Singapur-Dollar | 2,0667 |
| KRW | Südkoreanischer Won | 1 399,08 |
| ZAR | Südafrikanischer Rand | 7,5483 |

Währung

Kurs

USD

US-Dollar

1,1983

JPY

Japanischer Yen

133,72

DKK

Dänische Krone

7,4352

GBP

Pfund Sterling

0,65960

SEK

Schwedische Krone

9,1938

CHF

Schweizer Franken

1,5394

ISK

Isländische Krone

86,33

NOK

Norwegische Krone

8,4145

BGN

Bulgarischer Lew

1,9558

CYP

Zypern-Pfund

0,57940

CZK

Tschechische Krone

31,769

EEK

Estnische Krone

15,6466

HUF

Ungarischer Forint

250,14

LTL

Litauischer Litas

3,4528

LVL

Lettischer Lat

0,6527

MTL

Maltesische Lira

0,4245

PLN

Polnischer Zloty

4,4350

ROL

Rumänischer Leu

40 954

SIT

Slowenischer Tolar

240,0100

SKK

Slowakische Krone

40,120

TRL

Türkische Lira

1 782 400

AUD

Australischer Dollar

1,7079

CAD

Kanadischer Dollar

1,5844

HKD

Hongkong-Dollar

9,3465

NZD

Neuseeländischer Dollar

1,8624

SGD

Singapur-Dollar

2,0667

KRW

Südkoreanischer Won

1 399,08

ZAR

Südafrikanischer Rand

7,5483

---

(1)

Quelle: Von der Europäischen Zentralbank veröffentlichter Referenz-Wechselkurs.

---
#### § 452.127 Proportionate representation.

When officers of a national, international or intermediate labor organization are elected at a convention of delegates who have been chosen by secret ballot, the structure of representation of the membership is a matter for the union to determine in accordance with its constitution and bylaws. There is no indication that Congress intended, in enacting title IV of the Act, to require representation in delegate bodies of labor organizations to reflect the proportionate number of members in each subordinate labor organization represented in such bodies. Questions of such proportionate representation are determined in accordance with the labor organization's constitution and bylaws insofar as they are not inconsistent with the election provisions of the Act. Congress did not attempt to specify the organizational structure or the system of representation which unions must adopt. However, all members must be represented; the union may not deny representation to locals below a certain size.
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 28 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission 

with respect to broadcast media ownership. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2008 

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. KERRY, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. DODD, 

MR. OBAMA, Mr. HARKIN, Mrs. CLINTON, MS. CANTWELL, Mr. BIDEN, 

Mr. REED, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. STEVENS) submitted the following resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Fed4 eral Communications Commission relating to broadcast 

5 media ownership (Report and Order FCC 07–216), re6 ceived by Congress on February 22, 2008, and such rule 

7 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
#### § 404.7 Maintenance and retention of records.

Every person required to file any report under this part shall maintain records on the matters required to be reported which will provide in sufficient detail the necessary basic information and data from which the documents filed with the Office of Labor-Management Standards may be verified, explained or clarified, and checked for accuracy and completeness, and shall include vouchers, worksheets, receipts, financial and investment statements, contracts, correspondence, and applicable resolutions, in their original electronic and paper formats, and any electronic programs by which they are maintained, available for examination for a period of not less than five years after the filing of the documents based on the information which they contain.

[72 FR 36159, July 2, 2007]
§ 38.40 Affirmative outreach. Recipients must take appropriate steps to ensure that they are providing equal access to their WIOA Title I-financially assisted programs and activities. These steps should involve reasonable efforts to include members of the various groups protected by these regulations including but not limited to persons of different sexes, various racial and ethnic/national origin groups, various religions, individuals with limited English proficiency, individuals with disabilities, and individuals in different age groups. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Advertising the recipient's programs and/or activities in media, such as newspapers or radio programs, that specifically target various populations;
( b ) Sending notices about openings in the recipient's programs and/or activities to schools or community service groups that serve various populations; and
( c ) Consulting with appropriate community service groups about ways in which the recipient may improve its outreach and service to various populations.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7699
LEROY J. BAXTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1442-AM) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy J. Baxter, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Baxter v. Angelone , No. CA-97-1442-AM (E.D. Va. Nov.14, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04557**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 04557\04557_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04557\04557_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04557\04557_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04557\Certification Statement Plant ID_04557.PDF Plant certification statement x 04557\Supporting Documentation\04557_MAP-1 Fort Dodge Station.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04557\Supporting Documentation\WB-1 Fort Dodge Station.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04557\04557_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04557\04557_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
# EUR-Lex - 31999R2006 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R2006

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2006/1999 of 20 September 1999 fixing the minimum selling prices for beef put up for sale under the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1898/1999 **

*
Official Journal L 248 , 21/09/1999 P. 0005 - 0007 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2006/1999

of 20 September 1999

fixing the minimum selling prices for beef put up for sale under the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1898/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1633/98(2), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,

(1) Whereas tenders have been invited for certain quantities of beef fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/1999(3);

(2) Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2417/95(5), the minimum selling prices for meat put up for sale by tender should be fixed, taking into account tenders submitted;

(3) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The minimum selling prices for beef for the invitation to tender held in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1898/1999 for which the time limit for the submission of tenders was 10 September 1999 are as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 1999.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 September 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24.

(2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 233, 3.9.1999, p. 14.

(4) OJ L 251, 5.10.1979, p. 12.

(5) OJ L 248, 14.10.1995, p. 39.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6716

GEORGE L. REID,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JERRY HARRIS; LUIS LUGO; STEVEN J. RICHMOND;

JOHN FARMER; ROBERT HUDSON; TYRONE WILKINS;

DOUGLAS S. PEARSON; MAURICE JETT; WILLIAM

KEITH SMITH; KENYATTA WILLIAMS; FLOYD D.

ASHWOOD; T. KENDRICK; J. POWELL; K. KENNEY,

Plaintiffs,

versus

STAN BARRY, Sheriff; JANE CORCORAN,

Supervisor, Lt. Classification Unit; FAIRFAX

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-02-59-2)

Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George L. Reid, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

George L. Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint

without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Reid’s

notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrs., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on Feb.

6, 2002. Reid’s notice of appeal was filed on May 7, 2002.

Because Reid failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
(81 South. 136)

#### WASHBURN v. JOHNSON BROS. CO.

(6 Div. 534.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 14, 1919.)

Exceptions, Bill op <&wkey;55(l) — Establishment in Appellate Court.

Where bill was presented to trial judge, and then was delivered to counsel for appellee, who made material alterations, and it was returned to clerk of court, but not delivered to judge until after expiration of 90 days from rendition of judgment, no proper bill of exceptions was ever presented to trial judge, and bill as corrected cannot be established in appellate court.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Pugh, Judge.

Action between S. A. Washburn and the Johnson Bros. Company. From a judgment in favor of the latter, the former appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

W. P. McCrossin and John C. Carmichael, both of Birmingham, for' appellant.

William Spencer, Jr., and London, Yancey *&*Brower, all of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The testimony submitted in support of the motion to establish the bill of exceptions shows that the proposed bill was presented to the trial judge on the 12th day of July, 1918, that it was thereupon delivered to counsel for appellee, who made several changes in the bill as presented, and it was then returned to the clerk of the court, and later delivered to the judge, who failed to sign it within the time required by, law. The evidence further shows that the'bill, after its alteration, truly presented “the points of decision and the facts.” The evi-, dence further shows that the bill as cor-: rected did not reach the hands of the pre-( siding judge until after the expiration of 90 days from the rendition of the judgment.-

The alteration relating to what the plain-i tiff proposed to show by the witness George, Johnson respecting the transaction between, Hildebrand, Tidwell, and Johnson *Bros.,:*through which the indebtedness of Tidwell, to Johnson Bros, was extinguished, was aj material alteration, and therefore the bill, as presented to the trial judge was not a; correct bill of exceptions, and the motion to establish the bill as corrected must be overruled. Bradberry v. State, 168 Ala. 141, 53 South. 266.

After consideration of the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal, the opinion prevails that this motion should be granted, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 2701.7 Expedited closing procedure. ( a ) *Policy.* Although it is the general policy of the Commission to open to the public meetings that may be subject to closure, including meetings concerning adjudication of cases, the Commission may find it necessary in the public interest to close meetings. The purpose of this section is to provide an expedited closing procedure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(d)(4). The Commission has determined that, inasmuch as the Commission's responsibilities are almost entirely adjudicatory, a majority of its meetings may properly be closed under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10). Although the Commission has to date held few meetings, those that have been held concerned the adjudication of cases and could properly have been closed.
( b ) *Procedure.* A meeting may be closed if a majority of either the members of the Commission or of a panel of three or more Commissioners votes by recorded vote at the beginning of such a meeting to close it to the public. The record of the vote shall reflect the vote of each voting member and shall be made available to the public. A public announcement of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting shall be made at the earliest practicable time, except to the extent that such information is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c). Section 2701.3 does not apply to meetings closed under this section.
#### Hyman Garfinkel, as Administrator of the Estate of Jerome Garfinkel, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Philan Corporation, Respondent.

Submitted October 6, 1937;

decided October 22, 1937.

*Julius Blumenfeld*and *Hilton E. Roberts for*appellant.

*James G. Purdy, Arthur K. Wing*and *John H. Brogan*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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