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

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 65 

Reaffirming the freedom to decide and expressing continued support for 

medication abortion access. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2025 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming the freedom to decide and expressing continued 

support for medication abortion access. 

Whereas antiabortion extremists are desperate to ban abortion nationwide and are trying to misuse a centuries-old 

zombie law to achieve their goals; 

Whereas there is a settled understanding of the Comstock 

Act for nearly a century, and the Department of Justice, 

the courts, and Congress have made clear that the Comstock laws do not apply to lawful abortions; 

Whereas the majority of the public supports abortion access, 

and an overwhelming majority of Americans (80 percent) 

oppose a Federal law banning abortion nationwide; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 65 IH 

Whereas antiabortion extremists are waging a war on reproductive rights, including the ability to make personal, private health care decisions; 

Whereas misusing, misapplying, and misinterpreting the 

Comstock Act would be yet another attempt to attack access to medication abortion, a safe and effective health 

care option; 

Whereas misusing, misapplying, and misinterpreting the 

Comstock Act could threaten certain shipping and transportation of basic medical materials; and 

Whereas misusing, misapplying, and misinterpreting the 

Comstock Act could further threaten and endanger sexual and reproductive health: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) affirms the existing authority to distribute 

3 medication abortion under Federal law, as confirmed 

4 by the December 23, 2022, Department of Justice’s 

5 Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum Opinion for 

6 the General Counsel of the United States Postal 

7 Service which states in part that ‘‘Section 1461 of 

8 title 18 of the U.S. Code does not prohibit the mail9 ing of certain drugs that can be used to perform 

10 abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the 

11 recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully.’’; 

12 and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 65 IH 

1 (2) condemns restrictions on access to and cov2 erage of reproductive health care, including medica3 tion abortion like mifepristone. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
R.D. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160716

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
|   |  (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |      |                                                                                                                                                 |
|   |  (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                                |   |                                                       |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: November  18, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Jay Needelman                                     |   |
|                                |   | Jay Needelman (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                                |   | Chief Financial Officer                                    |   |
|                                |   |                                                       |   |
T.C.S. v. STATE

CR-16-0498

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 24 PageID 9013
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 2 of 24 PageID 9014
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 3 of 24 PageID 9015
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 4 of 24 PageID 9016
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 5 of 24 PageID 9017
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 6 of 24 PageID 9018
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 7 of 24 PageID 9019
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 8 of 24 PageID 9020
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 9 of 24 PageID 9021
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 10 of 24 PageID 9022
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 11 of 24 PageID 9023
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 12 of 24 PageID 9024
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 13 of 24 PageID 9025
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 14 of 24 PageID 9026
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 15 of 24 PageID 9027
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 16 of 24 PageID 9028
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 17 of 24 PageID 9029
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 18 of 24 PageID 9030
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 19 of 24 PageID 9031
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 20 of 24 PageID 9032
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 21 of 24 PageID 9033
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 22 of 24 PageID 9034
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 23 of 24 PageID 9035
Case 3:05-cv-00654-D Document 317 Filed 04/25/13 Page 24 of 24 PageID 9036
Kirby Lashawn TATE v. STATE

CR-17-0062

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 7, 2017 Reh. denied November 29, 2017

Dismissed.
# C_2017402EN.01001501.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/15

---

Appeal brought on 18 September 2017 by BPC Lux 2 Sàrl, and Others against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-812/14: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and Others v European Commission

(Case C-544/17 P)

(2017/C 402/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and Others (represented by: K. Bacon QC, B. Woogar, Barristers, J. Webber, M. Steenson, Solicitors)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Portuguese Republic

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court;

| — | remit the case to the General Court for a further hearing on the merits; and |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the General Court for a further hearing on the merits; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This is an appeal against the order of the General Court dated 19 July 2017 in Case T-812/14 BPC Lux 2 Sàrl v European Commission EU:T:2017:560 (‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the appellants’ action seeking annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5682 on State Aid SA.39250 Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo (‘the contested decision’).

In the order under appeal, the General Court held of its own motion that the appellants do not have an interest in annulment, and as such that their application is inadmissible. The appellants now appeal to the Court of Justice, on the single ground that the General Court erred in law and/or manifestly distorted the evidence before it.

Specifically, the General Court erred in finding that the annulment of the contested decision could not have any effect in the domestic proceedings because they concerned questions of national law while these proceedings concern issues of EU law. In fact, as set out further below, the appellants had provided evidence from their Portuguese lawyer, uncontradicted by the Commission or the Portuguese Republic, that the annulment of the contested decision would substantially increase the likelihood of success in their domestic judicial review application, entitling them either to annulment of the resolution of BES or to claim damages. In reaching the contrary conclusion, and thereby denying the Portuguese courts the opportunity to consider the point for themselves, the General Court impermissibly substituted its own assessment of the interpretation of national law for that of the Portuguese courts, and/or manifestly distorted the evidence before it.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.28

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                       SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                  1997 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN

WHEREAS, Santa Fe International Corporation ("SFIC") has established a
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (hereafter "Plan") for the benefit of
non-employee Directors of SFIC and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.7 of the plan, the Board of Directors may at any
time or from time to time amend the Plan, provided such amendment does not
adversely affect the vested rights of any participant in the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that it is appropriate at this
time to amend the Plan in a manner not inconsistent with the terms of the Plan,

NOW THEREFORE, effective this 23rd day of March 1999, the Santa Fe
International Corporation Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan is amended as
follows:

1. The current Section 2.1 Grant Of Options is DELETED and the following
Substituted therefore:

         "2.1 Grant Of Options. The Committee is authorized to grant Options to
         Grantees in accordance with the terms and conditions required pursuant
         to this Plan and with such additional terms and conditions, not
         inconsistent with the provisions of the Plan, as the Committee shall
         determine. Current and future non-employee Directors of the Company
         and any of its subsidiaries that have not previously received any
         stock options from the Company shall be granted a one-time award of a
         right to purchase 10,000 shares (or such higher amount determined by
         the Board) of Common Stock at the fair market value at the date of
         approval of the Plan or their election to the Board. Subsequently each
         Director shall receive an Option of 5,000 shares (or such higher
         amount determined by the Board) of Common Stock on an annual basis.

Dated: March 23, 1999


                                          SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION



                                          By: /s/ Cary A. Moomjian
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Santa Fe International Corporation
# C_2017213EN.01001601.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/16

---

Appeal brought on 16 February 2017 by Redpur GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15, Redpur GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-86/17 P)

(2017/C 213/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Redpur GmbH (represented by: S. Schiller, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Redwell Manufaktur GmbH

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the General Court’s judgment of 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15 and reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the General Court’s judgment of 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15 and reject the opposition;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the present appellant in these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the present appellant in these proceedings;

| — | order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the present appellant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the present appellant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Applicant for an EU trade mark: Appellant

Applicant for an EU trade mark

EU trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Redpur’ for goods in Class 11 — EU trade mark registration application No 10 934 305

EU trade mark concerned

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Other party to the proceedings

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings

Marks or signs cited in the opposition proceedings: EU word and figurative mark No 004769717 ‘redwell INFRAROT HEIZUNGEN’ for goods in Class 11; Austrian word mark with registration No 232549 ‘Redwell’ for goods in Class 11; International word mark (WIPO) with registration No 914971, ‘Redwell’ for goods in Class 11 and Company Names in Austria ‘REDWELL Manufaktur GmbH’ for heating systems and room heaters, in particular infrared heating and infrared heating systems

Marks or signs cited in the opposition proceedings:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)

Plea in law

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
II 

Calendar No. 2 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 9 

To provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of 

the Education Amendments of 1972 in athletics, sex shall be recognized 

based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

Mr. TUBERVILLE (for himself, Mr. RISCH, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. TILLIS, Mrs. 

CAPITO, Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

LANKFORD, Mr. DAINES, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. LEE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. 

HAGERTY, Mr. SCHMITT, Mr. BUDD, Mr. SHEEHY, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. 

BARRASSO, Mr. PAUL, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Ms. ERNST, 

Mrs. BRITT, Mr. RICKETTS, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. 

WICKER, Mr. BANKS and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was read the first time 

JANUARY 8, 2025 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To provide that for purposes of determining compliance with 

title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s 

reproductive biology and genetics at birth. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 9 PCS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protection of Women 

3 and Girls in Sports Act of 2025’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

5 Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972 

6 (20 U.S.C. 1681) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(d)(1) It shall be a violation of subsection (a) for 

9 a recipient of Federal funds who operates, sponsors, or 

10 facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a per11 son whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program 

12 or activity that is designated for women or girls. 

13 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, sex shall be rec14 ognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology 

15 and genetics at birth.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 2 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 9 

A BILL 

To provide that for purposes of determining compliand genetics at birth. based solely on a person’s reproductive biology of 1972 in athletics, sex shall be recognized ance with title IX of the Education Amendments 

JANUARY 8, 2025 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.42

FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

First Amendment ("Amendment") made as of March 3, 2008 to the Executive Severance Agreement
("Agreement") dated as of February 14, 2002, by and between Mac-Gray Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Waltham, Massachusetts (the "Company"), and                        (the
"Executive").

WHEREAS,
the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement to comply with the requirement of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and

WHEREAS,
the parties hereto desire that this Amendment be deemed a modification and an amendment to the Agreement.

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:

1.     The
Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following Section 20 to the end thereof:



2.     All
other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to their respective terms, and nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver of
any right or abrogation of any obligation otherwise existing under the Agreement except to the extent specifically provided for herein.

3.     This
is a Massachusetts contract and shall be construed under and be governed in all respects by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as a sealed instrument by the Company and by the Executive as of the date first above written.

| |  | MAC-GRAY CORPORATION                                                                   
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                                                    
| |  | Name: Stewart G. MacDonald, Jr
Title: Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
| |  |                                                                                        
| |  | Executive                                                                              

---



QuickLinks
Connor HENDERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Anna PETERSON a/k/a Anna Novak, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4942

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2017277EN.01002501.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-272/17)

(2017/C 277/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K.M. Zyla

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a worker who, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71 (1) or Regulation No 883/2004, (2) is insured under the social security system of the Member State concerned for part of a calendar year, and who, when the contributions for that insurance are levied, is entitled to only a portion of the contributions component of the general tax credit which is determined on a time-proportionate basis in relation to the period of insurance, if that worker, for the remainder of the calendar year, was not insured under the social security system of that Member State, and was resident in another Member State for the remainder of the calendar year and earned (virtually) his entire annual income in the first-mentioned Member State?

1

2

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

2

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael Schmidt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants
other certifying officers 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

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

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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                   |  |                             
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2008
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/ Michael Schmidt         
|                   |  | Michael Schmidt             
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer and,
|                   |  | Secretary