With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it is "premised on the theory that the [Djistrict !C]ourt misapplied the Guidelines.” United States v. Shaw, 313 F.3d 219, 222-23 (4th Cir.2002); see United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205, 212 (3d Cir.2008). 5 . Erwin contended at oral argument that there was no breach because he merely waived the right to file an appeal as opposed to promised not to file an appeal. See, e.g., Oral Arg. Tr. 4:08-5:23, 7:46-8:25 (3d Cir. May 20, 2014); see also Erwin Supplemental Br. 1 n. 1. Erwin has not proffered any principled basis for drawing this distinction, and common sense dictates that there is none. A "waiver” is defined as "the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of , 106 F.3d 427 (Table) (Fed.Cir.1997); Maslow v. Vanguri, 168 Md.App. 298, 896 A.2d 408, 423 (Md.Ct. Spec.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Of the 2,920 convictions in the district

A: holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party
B: holding that a motion denying summary judgment will not be reviewed on appeal from a jury verdict where sufficient evidence supports the jurys verdict
C: holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement
D: holding that the appellants appeal of the jurys verdict was a material breach of the no appeals provision in the parties settlement agreement
D.