alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.29
 
 NOTICE OF ANNUAL AND SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
 Company
 Meeting
 (1)
    
    to receive the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2009, as well
as the auditors report thereon;(2)
    
    to elect directors for the ensuing year;(3)
    
    to appoint auditors for the ensuing year and authorize the directors to set their compensation;(4)
    
    to consider, and if deemed advisable, to pass Resolution 2010-1 (the text of which is attached as
Appendix A to the accompanying Management Proxy Circular), with or without amendments,
approving the shareholder rights plan, the whole as described in the accompanying Management
Proxy Circular; and(5)
    
    to transact such other business as may properly come before the Meeting.
  BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS(signed) Jocelyn Lafond
Jocelyn Lafond
Corporate Secretary
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 1/22/97

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS WAYNE THOMPSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

PAGE TRUE, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-3013

(D.C. No. 95-CV-3361)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Appellant Douglas W. Thompson appeals the district court’s summary

denial of his petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a decision we review de

novo, see Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Because we

agree with the district court that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive remedy for an

inmate to challenge the validity of a federal conviction, and because petitioner

has not shown that a § 2255 petition would be either inadequate or ineffective, we

affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated by

that court.

Petitioner’s motion to produce exculpatory evidence is DENIED. The

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

s0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139865 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139865 

 COA: 285384 

Kent CC: 07-005355-FC 

MARCHRIS LEONARD BATES, 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 87-6240.

#### Thomas *v.*Newsome et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
News United States Air Force
 AFSVA seeks players for international basketball tourneyPublished Jan. 19, 2017
                        
                        By Steve Warns
                        
                        
                        AFCEC Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-LACKLAND, Texas (AFNS)  --**
                The Air Force Services Activity seeks Airmen who want to play on the 2017 Headquarters Allied Air Command (HQ AIRCOM) Basketball Team for the upcoming HQ AIRCOM Basketball Championship 
U.S. Air Forces in Europe applicants have priority since it’s a HQ AIRCOM event. However, non-USAFE applicants could be selected if slots are available.
Training camp is March 14-20 at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. The HQ AIRCOM championship is March 21-24 in Amsterdam.
Interested applicants can submit an Air Force Form 303 by Feb. 6 via myPersafter approval from their immediate chain of command.USAFE 



Spangdahlem AB 



AFSVA 



international basketball 



HQ AIRCOM 



JB Lackland
News United States Air Force
 Student loan forgiveness takes effect in OctoberPublished July 24, 2017
                        
                        By Richard Salomon
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The first forgiveness of student loan balances under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program goes into effect for government employees this October. 
The program offers forgiveness for remaining balances due on William D. Ford federal direct loans after employees have made at least 120 loan payments after Oct. 1, 2007, while employed full-time by certain public service employers. 
“This program is intended to encourage individuals to enter and continue to work full time in public service jobs, including the military, in lieu of seeking higher-paying private sector jobs,” said Dawn Byrd, the Air Force Personnel Center business process owner for education services policy.
Loan forgiveness is available only for direct loans; however, loans made under other federal student loan programs may become eligible for the program if they are consolidated into a direct consolidation loan. 
Visit Federal Student Aid for eligibility requirements and for additional information. 
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, go tomyPers.Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one byfollowing these instructions.AFPC 



education 



Air Force Personnel Center 



civilian 



government 



civil service 



Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program 



William D Ford federal direct loan 



federal student aid 



student loan
EX 10.1 Jeffrey S. Sloan Second Amdendment to Employment Agreement






Exhibit 10.1


SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN 
JEFFREY S. SLOAN 
AND GLOBAL PAYMENTS INC. 


Whereas, Global Payments Inc. (“Global”) and Jeffrey Sloan  (“Executive”) are parties to an Employment Agreement dated March 30, 2010, which was subsequently amended on October 1, 2013 (the “Agreement”); and 


Whereas, the parties now desire to further amend certain of the terms of the Agreement;


Now, Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto acknowledge that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


1.    Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:


“Executive is hereby employed as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company as of June 30, 2014.  In such capacity, Executive shall have the duties, responsibilities and authority commensurate with such positions as shall be assigned to him by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), which shall be consistent with the duties, responsibilities, and authority of persons holding such positions in a publicly traded company engaged in similar lines of business.  Executive shall report directly and exclusively to the Board.”  


Except as modified hereby, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect; provided, however, that if any term or condition of the Agreement conflicts with or is inconsistent with any term or condition of this Amendment, such terms and conditions hereof shall prevail and be controlling.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this amendment to be executed by their respective officers duly authorized as of the 29th day of August, 2014.


	
				
	 
	EXECUTIVE:
	 
	GLOBAL PAYMENTS INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Jeffrey S. Sloan
	 
	By: /s/ David L. Green

	 
	Jeffrey S. Sloan
	 
	Name: David L. Green

	 
	Date: August 29, 2014
	 
	Title: Executive Vice President and General Counsel

	 
	 
	 
	Date: August 29, 2014
II 

Calendar No. 55 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 276 

[Report No. 113–24] 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of 

a hydroelectric project involving the American Falls Reservoir. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2013 

Mr. RISCH (for himself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

APRIL 22, 2013 

Reported by Mr. WYDEN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project involving the 

American Falls Reservoir. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 276 RS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY 

2 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT IN3 VOLVING AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR. 

4 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 

5 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

6 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com7 mission project numbered 12423, the Federal Energy 

8 Regulatory Commission shall, at the request of the li9 censee for the project, and after reasonable notice and in 

10 accordance with the procedures of the Commission under 

11 that section, reinstate the license and extend the time pe12 riod during which the licensee is required to commence 

13 the construction of project works to the end of the 3-year 

14 period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 55 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 276 

[Report No. 113–24] 

A BILL 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commenceinvolving the American Falls Reservoir. ment of construction of a hydroelectric project 

APRIL 22, 2013 

Reported without amendment 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
S. 25 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To ensure that the reduced annual cost-of-living adjustment to the retired pay 

of members and former members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 

required by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 will not apply to members or 

former members who first became members prior to January 1, 2014, and for 

other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DIRECT SPENDING REDUCTION FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

Paragraph (6)(B) of section 251A of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) is amended 

by striking ‘‘and for fiscal year 2023’’ and by inserting ‘‘, for fiscal 

year 2023, and for fiscal year 2024’’. 

SEC. 2. INAPPLICABILITY OF REDUCED ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF 

RETIRED PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 

UNDER THE AGE OF 62 UNDER THE BIPARTISAN BUDGET 

ACT OF 2013 WHO FIRST BECAME MEMBERS PRIOR TO 

JANUARY 1, 2014. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1401a(b)(4) of title 10, United States 

Code, as added by section 403(a) of the Bipartisan Budget Act 

of 2013 (Public Law 113–67) and amended by section 10001 of 

the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 

113–76), is amended by adding at the end the following new 

subparagraph: 

‘‘(G) MEMBERS COVERED.—This paragraph applies to 

a member or former member of an armed force who first 

became a member of a uniformed service on or after 

January 1, 2014.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect on December 1, 2015, immediately after the coming 

into effect of section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 

and the amendments made by that section. 

SEC. 3. TRANSITIONAL FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE (SGR) 

REFORM. 

Section 1898 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395iii) 

is amended— 

(1) by amending the heading to read as follows: ‘‘TRANSITIONAL FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE (SGR) REFORM’’; 

(2) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows: 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish under this 

title a Transitional Fund for Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) Reform 

(in this section referred to as the ‘Fund’) which shall be available 
S. 25—2 

to the Secretary to provide funds to pay for physicians’ services 

under part B to supplement the conversion factor under section 

1848(d) for 2017 if the conversion factor for 2017 is less than 

conversion factor for 2013.’’; 

(3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘during—’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘during or after 2017, $2,300,000,000.’’; 

and 

(4) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘from the Federal’’ and 

all that follows and inserting ‘‘from the Federal Supplementary 

Medical Insurance Trust Fund.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      TRIBUTE TO MARILYN D. MOSLEY

                                 ______

                          HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 2, 1995
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to have constituents within my 
district who are committed to their community and passionate about 
their participation in the political process. Marilyn Mosley 
exemplifies the previously listed qualities. She serves as the 
assistant to the Brooklyn Borough president. In her capacity she is 
responsible for maintaining relations between that office and various 
community boards in the borough.
  Born in Brooklyn, Marilyn is a product of the New York City Public 
School system. Marilyn was a member of the Girls High School class of 
1959, and was voted ``most likely to succeed'' by her classmates. She 
later earned a bachelor of science degree from Morgan State University, 
where she majored in mathematics.
  Marilyn began her professional career at P.S. 29, the same school 
from which she graduated. Teaching sixth grade at P.S. 29 was 
particularly rewarding for her because she was able to serve alongside 
her former teacher and mentor, the late Clara Cardwell. Marilyn has 
served the school system in several teaching, supervisory, and 
administrative capacities. While teaching, Marilyn attended graduate 
school, graduating from City College summa cum laude with a master's 
degree in science and mathematics education. She earned a second 
master's degree in educational administration and supervision. Marilyn 
was inducted into Phi Delta Kappa, an honorary fraternity for student 
maintaining summa cum laude status at the graduate level.
  Marilyn's achievements have been recognized by a host of groups and 
organizations. She has received numerous awards such as the PTA award 
for Excellence in Teaching, Educator of the Year, Woman of the Year, 
and citations from the New York City Council and the New York State 
Legislature. Marilyn's accomplishments are a testament to her interest, 
effort, and commitment to improving the quality of life for Brooklyn 
residents who consistently cite her for work well done.

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1319

In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG,

Plaintiff - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(MISC-94-67)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: October 5, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorothy P. Litzenberg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant apparently appeals district court orders that directed her various pleadings be placed in a “miscellaneous file” to

be reviewed by the court before they are styled as a new, separate

action. We have reviewed the record and have determined that there

is no final appealable order before us to review. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because there is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order

for review. We deny Appellant’s motion for trial in another circuit. 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

LASTASHA SERRANO, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 253 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Nov. 15Published Nov. 15, 2017
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **Airman 1st Class Jasmine Vanderheyden --**
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**– On this look around the Air Force, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein deliver the State of the Air Force Address at the Pentagon, and Lt. Gen. Mark Nowland, Deputy Chief of Staff for Air Force Operations, testifies about Aviation readiness to the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee. Hosted by Airman 1st Class Jasmine Vanderheyden.
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related Links:
- State of the Air Force
- Aviation readinessAround the Air Force 



ATAF 



Featured Videos 



leadership 



HASC 



SotAF 



CSAF 



SecAF 



readiness
1 The Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3424

___________ Addie J. Skeens, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of * the Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 2003 Filed: March 10, 2003

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Addie J. Skeens appeals the District Court’s 1 opinion affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record, seeBanks v. Massanari , 258 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), we affirm.-2- In her September 1999 application and related documents, Skeens alleged disability since January 1998 from back and leg pain related to prior injuries, from carpal tunnel syndrome, and from insomnia. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Skeens’s capacity to perform sedentary work had notbeen compromised by any nonexertional limitations and that, based on the MedicalVocational Guidelines (Grids), she was not disabled. The ALJ recited numerous valid reasons for finding Skeens not entirely credible and for discounting the December 1999 opinion of orthopedist Harry Miller that Skeens could not be gainfully employed due to her combined impairments. See Holmstrom v. Massanari , 270 F.3d 715, 720-21 (8th Cir. 2001) (weighing of treating physicians’ opinions); Lowe v. Apfel , 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (credibility findings). The ALJ also properly used the Grids as a framework to guide his decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.969a(d) (2002); Social Security Ruling 83-14, 1983 WL 31254, at *6 (Social Security Administration, 1983) (where it is clear that added limitation or restriction has very little effect on exertional occupational base, conclusion directed by Grids would not be affected). Further, the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he considered Skeens’s impairments in combination. See Hajek v. Shalala , 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50150 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE IGNACIO PERALES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-01-CR-117-1

-------------------- August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John M. Hurley, counsel appointed to represent Jose Ignacio Perales, has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Perales has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.