alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2560.502-1 Requests for enforcement pursuant to section 502(b)(2). ( a ) *Form, content and filing.* All requests by participants, beneficiaries, and fiduciaries for the Secretary of Labor to exercise his enforcement authority pursuant to section 502(a)(5), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(5), with respect to a violation of, or the enforcement of, parts 2 and 3 of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) shall be in writing and shall contain information sufficient to form a basis for identifying the participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary and the plan involved. All such requests shall be considered filed if they are directed to and received by any office or official of the Department of Labor or referred to and received by any such office or official by any party to whom such writing is directed.
( b ) *Consideration.* The Secretary of Labor retains discretion to determine whether any enforcement proceeding should be commenced in the case of any request received pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, and he may, but shall not be required to, exercise his authority pursuant to section 502(a)(5) of the Act only if he determines that such violation affects, or such enforcement is necessary to protect claims of participants or beneficiaries to benefits under the plan.
[43 FR 50175, Oct. 27, 1978]
Exhibit 4.4

 

2022 Notes Unit Agreement Joinder

 

April 1, 2015

 

Dynegy Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) hereby agrees as successor in interest to Dynegy Finance II, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Finance II”), to be bound by the terms and provisions attributable to an Issuer of the Unit Agreement, dated as of October 27, 2014 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “2022 Notes Unit Agreement”), among Finance II, Dynegy Finance I, Inc. and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Unit Agent, and to assume and be bound to perform all obligations of an Issuer thereunder.  By executing and delivering this Unit Agreement Joinder, the Company hereby becomes a party to the 2022 Notes Unit Agreement as an Issuer thereunder.  Unless the context otherwise requires, all references to “Finance II” in the 2022 Notes Unit Agreement shall refer to the Company.

 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first set forth above.

 

 

	
 
    	
Dynegy   Inc., as an Issuer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Robert C. Flexon
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Robert   C. Flexon
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
President &   Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Dynegy   Finance I, Inc., as an Issuer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Clint C. Freeland
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Clint   C. Freeland
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Executive   Vice President & Chief
   Financial Officer
II 

Calendar No. 86 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 93 

[Report No. 110–38] 

To authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated receipts of the Digital 

Television Transition and Public Safety Fund to initiate migration to 

a national IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and responding to all citizen activated emergency communications. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Ms. SNOWE, and 

Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Reported by Mr. INOUYE, without amendment 

A BILL 

To authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated receipts 

of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety 

Fund to initiate migration to a national IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and responding to 

all citizen activated emergency communications. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 93 RS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘911 Modernization 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR PROGRAM. 

5 Section 3011 of Public Law 109–171 (47 U.S.C. 309 

6 note) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘The’’ and inserting: 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(b) CREDIT.—The Assistant Secretary may borrow 

11 from the Treasury, upon enactment of this provision, such 

12 sums as necessary, but not to exceed $43,500,000 to im13 plement this section. The Assistant Secretary shall reim14 burse the Treasury, without interest, as funds are depos15 ited into the Digital Television Transition and Public 

16 Safety Fund.’’. 

17 SEC. 3. NTIA COORDINATION OF E–911 IMPLEMENTATION. 

18 Section 158(b)(4) of the National Telecommuni19 cations and Information Administration Organization Act 

20 (47 U.S.C. 942(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end 

21 thereof the following: ‘‘Within 180 days after the date of 

22 enactment of the 911 Modernization Act, the Assistant 

23 Secretary and the Administrator shall jointly issue regula24 tions updating the criteria to provide priority for public 

25 safety answering points not capable, as of the date of en26 actment of that Act, of receiving 911 calls.’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Calendar No. 86 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 93 

[Report No. 110

–38] 

A BILL 

To authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated 

emergency communications. receiving and responding to all citizen activated tional IP-enabled emergency network capable of Public Safety Fund to initiate migration to a nareceipts of the Digital Television Transition and 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41043

Summary Calendar

 

VERDELL CLAY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-203

- - - - - - - - - -

September 16, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Verdell Clay, Texas prisoner # 527757, appeals from the

district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas

corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted Clay a COA

on the following of Clay’s arguments: 1) the evidence was not

sufficient to support the jury’s verdict convicting him of

possession of heroin; 2) the trial court erred in allowing the

introduction of testimony concerning extraneous offenses; and 
No. 98-41043

-2-

3) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing

arguments. 

We have reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and

the applicable law, and we find no reversible error. The

evidence was sufficient to support Clay’s conviction. See

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Clay’s challenge

to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admission of

testimony of extraneous acts does not present a cognizable habeas

claim because, even if erroneous, the court’s rulings did not

render Clay’s trial fundamentally unfair. See Pemberton v.

Collins, 991 F.2d 1218, 1226 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, even if

the prosecutor’s statements at closing were improper, Clay fails

to demonstrate that the misconduct was “persistent and pronounced

or that the evidence of guilt was so insubstantial that the

conviction would not have occurred but for the improper remarks." 

Jones v. Butler, 864 F.2d 348, 356 (5th Cir. 1988).

We do not reach the other issues raised by Clay because the

only issues properly before this court are those on which the

district court granted the COA. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d

149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court’s judgment

denying Clay’s habeas petition is AFFIRMED. Clay’s motion to

file a reply brief out of time is DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
[No. 49359-1-I.

Division One.

October 21, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Alumneh Asefa, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-8-03394-0, Nicole Maclnnes, J., entered October 5, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### COMMUNITY TRACTION CO v KONTE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22138.

Decided June 18, 1930

Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-3154-EM] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency for the State of New Mexico, (FEMA-3154-EM), dated May 10, 2000, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 11, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an emergency for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of May 10, 2000: 

Rio Arriba County for assistance as specified in the May 10, 2000, declaration letter. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

 

Robert J. Adamcik, 

Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 00-12810 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 19, 2015

NO. 03-14-00675-CV

Agapito Panalez, Jr., Appellant

v.

Amy Telano, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 20, 2014. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### HOCKING VALLEY RY CO v WYKLE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Jackson Co

Decided December 23, 1929

Messrs. Wilson & Rector, Columbus, and Willis & Jones, Jackson, for Ry Co.

Messrs. Cowan, Adams, Adams, & Jackson, Columbus, U. S. Hahn ,and E. E. Eubanks, Jackson, for Wykle.

MIDDLETON, PJ.

These instructions were properly refused. Each placed upon the plaintiff the positive and unqualified duty to do a certain thing at a certain time. While there has been some apparent conflict among the courts of this state in the interpretation of the requirements of a .person riding as a guest in a motor car operated by another when approaching a railroad crossing, yet since the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Railway and Light Co. v Mayers, 93 OS. 304, it would seem to be definitely settled that the .measure of his duty is that of ordinary and reasonable care under the particular circumstances of each case.

In the case of Railway Co. v Bacon, Admr., 30 OA. 295, Judge Allread in delivering the opinion of the court said: (Here follows quotation)

If the rule in the instant case was one of reasonable and ordinary care such degree of care and -the things required of the plaintiff were for the jury to determine under- the particular circumstances of the case.

The plaintiff was riding on the right side of the automobile on the front seat. The driver was on the left side and a young lady was sitting between the two. The train approached from the left and the automobile was struck from the left. It is in evidence that the plaintiff did look both to the right ,and left but apparently with more care to the right, but whether that was true or not if he looked to his right for approaching danger from a situation equally if not more dangerous to the approaching automobile than from the left, could he not reasonably have expected the driver to know and observe what might be approaching from the left? *80We conclude that these questions were for the jury to determine under the rule of reasonable and ordinary care, and that the trial court could not by the instructions refused impose the unqualified duty as expressed in said instructions upon the plaintiff.

It is further complained that the trial court erred in permitting certain witnesses to state their opinion as to whether or not they could have heard a whistle or the ringing of the bell of the approaching engine if there had been a whistle or such ringing. This evidence was objectionable. The witnesses, however, had fully explained to the jury their ability and opportunity to know of these facts before answering the questions to which objection was made, and the effect-of the objectionable answers was not sufficient to justify this court in reversing the judgment.

Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
#### § 18.702 Testimony by experts.

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the judge as trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
§ 23.540 Consent findings and order. ( a ) At any time prior to the receipt of evidence or, at the Administrative Law Judge's discretion prior to the issuance of the Administrative Law Judge's decision, the parties may enter into consent findings and an order disposing of the proceeding in whole or in part.
( b ) Any agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of a proceeding in whole or in part shall also provide: ( 1 ) That the order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after full hearing;
( 2 ) That the entire record on which any order may be based shall consist solely of the Administrator's findings letter and the agreement;
( 3 ) A waiver of any further procedural steps before the Administrative Law Judge and the Administrative Review Board regarding those matters which are the subject of the agreement; and
( 4 ) A waiver of any right to challenge or contest the validity of the findings and order entered into in accordance with the agreement.
( c ) Within 30 calendar days after receipt of an agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the Administrative Law Judge shall, if satisfied with its form and substance, accept such agreement by issuing a decision based upon the agreed findings and order. If such agreement disposes of only a part of the disputed matter, a hearing shall be conducted on the matters remaining in dispute.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart Z of Part 1910

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1910 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1910.1005 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Metropolitan Playhouses, Inc., Respondent, against Mark Graves et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission, Appellants.

Argued October 5, 1937;

decided October 19, 1937.

*622
      *John J.*Bennett, Jr., *Attorney-General (Harry T. O’Brien, Jr.,*of counsel), for appellants.

*Samuel S. Allan, Milton C. Weisman*and *Edmund P. Silver*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 1908.10 Cooperative Agreements. ( a ) *Who may make Agreements.* The Assistant Secretary may make a Cooperative Agreement under this part with the Governor of a State or with any State agency designated for that purpose by the Governor.
( b ) *Negotiations.* ( 1 ) Procedures for negotiations may be obtained through the RA who will negotiate for the Assistant Secretary and make final recommendations on each Agreement to the Assistant Secretary.
( 2 ) States with Plans approved under section 18 of the Act may initiate negotiations in anticipation of the withdrawal from the Plan of Federally funded onsite consultation services to private sector employers.
( 3 ) Renegotiation of existing Agreements funded under this part shall be initiated within 30 days of the effective date of these revisions.
( c ) *Contents of Cooperative Agreement.* ( 1 ) Any Agreement and subsequent modifications shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
( 2 ) Each Agreement shall provide that the State will conform its operations under the Agreement to: ( i ) The requirements contained in this part 1908;
( ii ) All related formal directives subsequently issued by the Assistant Secretary implementing this regulation.
( 3 ) Each Agreement shall contain such other explicit written commitments in conformance with the provisions of this part as may be required by the Assistant Secretary. Each Agreement shall also include a budget of the State's anticipated expenditures under the Agreement, in the detail and format required by the Assistant Secretary.
( d ) *Location of sample Cooperative Agreement.* A sample Agreement is available for inspection at all Regional Offices of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor.
( e ) *Action upon requests.* The State will be notified within a reasonable period of time of any decision concerning its request for a Cooperative Agreement. If a request is denied, the State will be informed in writing of the reasons supporting the decision. If a Cooperative Agreement is negotiated, the initial finding will specify the period for the Agreement. Additional funds may be added at a later time provided the activity is satisfactorily carried out and appropriations are available. The State may also be required to amend the Agreement for continued support.
( f ) *Termination.* Either party may terminate a Cooperative Agreement under this part upon 30 days' written notice to the other party.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1218-0110) [49 FR 25094, June 19, 1984, as amended at 54 FR 24333, June 7, 1989]
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.958 Materials handling and storage. ( a ) *General.* Materials handling and storage shall comply with applicable material-handling and material-storage requirements in this part, including those in subparts N and CC of this part.
( b ) *Materials storage near energized lines or equipment* — ( 1 ) *Unrestricted areas.* In areas to which access is not restricted to qualified persons only, materials or equipment may not be stored closer to energized lines or exposed energized parts of equipment than the following distances, plus a distance that provides for the maximum sag and side swing of all conductors and for the height and movement of material-handling equipment: ( i ) For lines and equipment energized at 50 kilovolts or less, the distance is 3.05 meters (10 feet).
( ii ) For lines and equipment energized at more than 50 kilovolts, the distance is 3.05 meters (10 feet) plus 0.10 meter (4 inches) for every 10 kilovolts over 50 kilovolts.
( 2 ) *Restricted areas.* In areas restricted to qualified employees, materials may not be stored within the working space about energized lines or equipment.
Note to paragraph ( b
)(2):
Paragraph (b) of § 1926.966 specifies the size of the working space.
§ 18.611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation. ( a ) *Control by judge.* The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: ( 1 ) Make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth,
( 2 ) Avoid needless consumption of time, and
( 3 ) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
( b ) *Scope of cross-examination.* Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The judge may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.
( c ) *Leading questions.* Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
[No. 20809-5-III.

Division Three.

January 9, 2003.]

#### Barney P. Buckley, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Retirement Systems, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whitman County, No. 01-2-00047-9, David Frazier, J., entered December 18, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, C.J., concurred in by Sweeney and Schultheis, JJ. Now published at 116 Wn. App. 1.