alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61004-61005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19173]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. EP 552 (Sub-No. 27)]


Railroad Revenue Adequacy--2022 Determination

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 5, 2023, the Board served a decision announcing 
the 2022 revenue adequacy determinations for the nation's Class I 
railroads. Five Class I railroads (BNSF Railway Company, CSX 
Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, 
Soo Line Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad Company) were found to 
be revenue adequate.

DATES: This decision is effective on September 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. If you 
require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
please call (202) 245-0245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(3), the Board is 
required to make an annual determination of railroad revenue adequacy. 
A railroad is considered revenue adequate under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a) if 
it achieves a rate of return on net investment (ROI) equal to at least 
the current cost of capital for the railroad industry. For 2022, this 
number was determined to be 10.58% in Railroad Cost of Capital--2022, 
EP 558 (Sub-No. 26) (STB served Aug. 3, 2023). The Board then applied 
this revenue adequacy standard to each Class I railroad. Five Class I 
carriers (BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk 
Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Corporation, and 
Union Pacific Railroad Company) were found to be revenue adequate for 
2022.
    The decision in this proceeding is posted at www.stb.gov.

    Decided: August 30, 2023.


[[Page 61005]]


    By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and 
Schultz.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2023-19173 Filed 9-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C

J & B ENTERPRISES , INC. , ;= ; d/b/ aRHYTH M SHINE , Z ]

Complainan t

• '-•'? V
. Docke t No
. 16-08-0 7 ^^ g METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E o AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , ^ ^ ^

Respondent
.

ORDE RO F EXTENSIO N O F TIM E Althoug h 1 4 Code o f

Federal Regulation s Par

t 16 , Rule s o f

Practic e fo r

Federally-Assiste d Airport Enforcement

Proceeding s i s intende dt o expedite substantiall y th e handlin g and dispositio n o f

airport-relate dcomplaints
. Sectio n 16.11(a ) provide s that

a n extensio n o f

time ma y b e grzmte

dwhere necesszir

y o r appropriate fo

r afai r an dcomplete hearin g o f

th e matter s befor e th e agency . I n th e foregoin g matter , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) require s additiona l tim e fo r afai r an dcomplete hearin g o f

th e matter . Accordingly , th e FAA' s Fina l Agenc y Decisio n i s extende dan dno w du e t o b e rendere do n or befor e Marc h S , 2010
.

Date : Fann y Rivej ; Assistan t Administrato r

fo r Civi l Right s andFAA Diversit

y Advocate 

# 2//^// 0CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIFY tha t o n Februar

y 16,2010, 1 cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t class , postag e paid) , or

personall y delivere datru e copy o f tiie ORDE

RO F EXTENSIO N addresse dto : Arthur?
. Ber g Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LLP 64 1 Lexingto n Ave. , Suite 140 9 Ne w York , Ne w Yor

k 1002 2 Aberg@Kaplan.kirsch.co m (212)328-951 5 (646 ) 514-544 0 fa

x Thoma s J
. Henderso n Henderso n Law Firm , PLL C 142 5 K
. Street , NW , Suite 35 0 Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) 587-568 7 (202 ) 587-560 1 fa

x "i' '

Wilbu r S
. Barham , Directo r Nationa l Airpor t Civi l Right s Polic y an

d Complianc e Offic e o f Civi l Right s
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 12 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TIM THEMY-KOTRONAKIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-4166

(D.C. No. 86-486-G)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.**

Defendant-Appellant Tim Themy-Kotronakis appeals from the district

court’s revocation of probation and imposition of six months imprisonment. Mr.

Themy-Kotronakis contends the district court’s failure to apprise him of the

disadvantages of proceeding without full representation of counsel invalidates his

waiver of such benefits and entitles him to a new revocation hearing. Our
2

jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Mr. Themy-Kotronakis argues the district court failed to make inquiry

regarding his waiver of representation by counsel. However, we review de novo

whether Mr. Themy-Kotronakis waived his right to counsel, see Brewer v.

Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 397 n.4 (1977), and believe he did not. A waiver of the

right to be represented by counsel must be knowing and intelligent, see Farretta v.

California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975); if anything, the record here discloses Mr.

Themy-Kotronakis knowingly and intelligently preserved his right to the aid of

counsel at his revocation hearing. See Aplt. App. at 3-12. In response to Mr.

Themy-Kotronakis’ request, the district court ordered the appointment of standby

counsel, see Aplt. App. at 14, and Mr. Themy-Kotronakis was so assisted at the

hearing. See Aplt. App. at 17-18; id. at 43- 61. There being no waiver of the right

to counsel, the question of its validity is moot. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
From: lhch87gn@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:59:43 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

LaVary Hager

Brighton, CO 80601
Exhibit



            



February 17, 2016


Stephen I. Chazen
c/o Occidental Petroleum Corporation
5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110
Houston, Texas 77046


Re: Your Restricted Stock Awards
Dear Mr. Chazen: 
Occidental Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) previously granted you restricted stock awards under the Occidental Petroleum Corporation 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as amended, restated and otherwise modified from time to time, the “2005 LTIP”) pursuant to the Restricted Stock Incentive Award Terms and Conditions dated as of July 10, 2013 (the “2013 Award”) and the Restricted Stock Incentive Award Terms and Conditions dated as of July 9, 2014 (the “2014 Award” and, together with the 2013 Award, the “Awards”). Section 5(b) of the Awards contains a provision whereby you are required to participate through the applicable vesting date in the Occidental Petroleum Corporation Dividend Reinvestment Plan (as amended, restated and otherwise modified from time to time, the “DRIP”) with respect to dividends paid on the shares of restricted stock subject to the Awards and not permitted to withdraw any shares from the DRIP until after the applicable vesting date. The Executive Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Company’s Board of Directors determined at a meeting held on February 17, 2016 to eliminate this provision. 
Subject to your execution of this letter agreement below, Section 5(b) of the Awards is hereby rendered null and void and shall be deemed deleted from the Awards as though such provision had never been included therein. Except as provided in this letter agreement, the Awards shall continue in full force and effect. 
Sincerely, 
Occidental Petroleum Corporation


By: /s/ Darin S. Moss          
Name:    Darin S. Moss
Title:      Vice President Human Resources


Agreed and accepted:


/s/ Stephen I Chazen            
Stephen I. Chazen
From: bonnie@rhinesmith.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:01:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Rhinesmith

Big Horn, WY 82833
|   | (1) | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended      December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.      78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| February 12, 2009 |   | /s/Phillip      E. Becker                  |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date              |   | Phillip      E. Becker                     |
|              |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|              |   |                                       |
|              |   |                                       |
|              |   |                                       |
| February 12, 2009 |   | /s/H.      Stewart Fitz Gibbon III         |
| Date              |   | H.      Stewart Fitz Gibbon III            |
|              |   | Executive      Vice President and          |
|              |   | Chief      Financial Officer               |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27 CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARINE TRANSPORT
CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                             8,652
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     13,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                         509
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  28,940
<PP&E>                                           106,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                    67,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   106,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             20,730
<BONDS>                                           24,111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           3,277
<OTHER-SE>                                        12,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     106,470
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 184,778
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    151,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  38,803
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 8,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (6,913)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (39,985)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      33,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       6.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       6.31
        


</TABLE>
From: Spen281

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support of the AAUW

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:29:11 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.
From: pkmark89@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:05:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Kaiser

Waterloo, IL 62298
From: lucyokoh@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:14 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

l okoh

Englewood, CO 80113
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         979,712
<SECURITIES>                                   226,550
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,536,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                   129,484
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,876,865
<PP&E>                                      27,690,535
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,404,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,009,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,313,154
<BONDS>                                     40,681,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       359,271
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,813,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,009,438
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,235,579
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,296,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,422,124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,730,754
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,730,754
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,730,754
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77


</TABLE>