alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Janet L. HORGAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ann Priester, Appellant, v. Barbara J. HESTERBERG, Individually and as the Former Trustee of The Vaughn R. Priester Trust and as the Former Attorney-in-Fact for Ann Priester, and Patricia L. Seifert, Individually and As the Successor Trustee of the Vaughn R. Priester Trust, Respondents.

No. ED 105841

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: November 13, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT(s) Ann Priester and Janet Lynn Horgan : Daniel L. Goldberg, 228 North Main Street, St. Charles, MO 63301.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: John C. Maxwell atty for Barbara J. Hesterberg, 1112 First Capitol Drive, Suite B, St. Charles, MO 63301, Francis X. Duda attys for Patricia L. Seifert, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1540, St. Louis, MO 63101, ANDERSON & GILBERT, L.C., Stephen Martin Lillis, Co-Counsel, 600 Washington Avenue, 15th floor, St. Louis, MO 63101, ANDERSON & GILBERT, L.C.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Janet L. Horgan ("Horgan"), as the personal representative of the estate of Ann Priester ("Priester"), appeals from the Judgment of the trial court following an equity suit brought by then-beneficiary Priester1 against the initial trustee Barbara J. Hesterberg and successor trustee Patricia L. Seifert alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Vaughn R. Priester Revocable Trust. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

Priester passed away on February 23, 2018 after this appeal was filed, and her counsel requested that Horgan, in her capacity as the personal representative of the estate of Priester, be substituted as the appellant in this case. We granted this substitution on April 30, 2018.
Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.26 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to Employment
Agreement is by and between Kim Sinatra (“Employee”) and Wynn Resorts, Limited (“Employer”). 
 WHEREAS, Employee and
Employer have entered in to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of April 24, 2007, as amended (the “Employment Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, due to the ongoing negative economic climate, Employee and Employer desire to amend the Employment Agreement in order to assist Employer to maintain business stability thereby preserving Employee’s employment. 
 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Amendment to Base Salary. Effective February 16, 2009, the term “Base Salary” shall be mean $425,000 per annum. 


 

	 	2.	Other Provisions of Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the Employment Agreement is being modified only as stated herein, and agree that nothing else in the
Employment Agreement shall be affected by this Amendment. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Amendment to be executed as of the date below. 
  

									
	WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED	 	EMPLOYEE
			
	 /s/ Matt Maddox
	 		 	 /s/ Kim Sinatra

		 		 	Kim Sinatra
	By:	 	 Matt Maddox
	 		 	
		 		 		 	Date:	 	 2/12/09

	Its:	 	 CFO & Treasurer
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TierOne Corporation (Company), hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

| | (1) | The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
               June 30, 2007 (Report) fully complies with the requirements of
               Section 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.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  August 6, 2007 | By:  /s/ Gilbert G. Lundstrom        
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                      | Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the
|                      | Board and Chief Executive Officer
exv10w14wii






Exhibit 10.14(ii)




Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation Plan




Effective February 8, 2010


The following is a summary of Compellent Technologies, Inc.’s (the “Company”) annual compensation
arrangement for its non-employee directors (the “Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan”) for such
period of time as a non-employee director continues to serve in such capacity during the applicable
calendar year:





	 	•	 	The non-employee members of the Board shall receive annual cash compensation in the
amount of $25,000 per year.
	 
	 	•	 	The Chairperson of the Audit Committee shall receive annual cash compensation in the
amount of $24,000 per year. Each non-chairperson member of the Audit Committee shall
receive annual cash compensation in the amount of $10,000 per year.
	 
	 	•	 	The Chairperson of the Compensation Committee shall receive annual cash compensation in
the amount of $11,000 per year. Each non-chairperson member of the Compensation Committee
shall receive annual cash compensation in the amount of $5,000 per year.
	 
	 	•	 	The Chairperson of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee shall receive
annual cash compensation in the amount of $5,500 per year. Each non-chairperson member of
the Compensation Committee shall receive annual cash compensation in the amount of $2,500
per year.
	 
	 	•	 	The non-employee directors shall also be eligible for reimbursement for expenses
incurred in attending Board and Committee meetings.




All sums referenced above shall be payable on a pro rata basis each quarter.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Allan S. Kitagawa, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Territorial Bancorp 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 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 officer 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 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 subsidiary, 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 functions):

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: March 29, 2010



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Allan S. Kitagawa                                       
|Allan S. Kitagawa                                           
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of Dover Holding Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank
P. Crivello, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




March
      11, 2010By:
              /s/ Frank
      P. CrivelloFrank
      P. Crivello
                Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7884

MARTIN RAY BYLER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

REGGIE WEISNER, Captain, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00864-TDS-RAE) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas Hilton Johnson, Jr., GRAY JOHNSON BLACKMON LEE & LAWSON, 

LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Martin Ray Byler seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the 

record and conclude that Byler has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal. We deny Byler’s motion for bail pending 

appeal. 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
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-59495A; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-052]

In FR Doc. E9-5212, for Tuesday, March 11, 2009, on page 10633, third column, footnote 8, the text is revised to read:

                    The text of the proposed new FINRA rule, marked to show changes from NASD IM-2110-7 and to show that NASD IM-2110-7 is to be deleted in its entirety from the Transitional Rulebook, is attached as Exhibit 5 to the proposed rule change and is available at                     *http://www.finra.org/​Industry/​Regulation/​RuleFilings/​2008/​P117330.*                     FINRA has transferred NASD Rule 2110 to the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook without change as FINRA Rule 2010. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR 57174 (October 1, 2008) [File No.                                         SR-FINRA-2008-028].                

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.1

Florence E. Harmon,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             17 CFR 200.30-(a)(12).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. E9-6353 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

5-2-2015 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11268 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act 

and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0942-0001. 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

HUVRData, LLC was issued an Exemption numbered 11268 (hereinafter the Exemption) 

for the purpose of conducting aerial imaging for 1) wind farm survey; 2) solar farm survey; 3) 

inspection of industrial infrastructure including electrical towers, flare stacks and pipelines; and 

4) precision agriculture. HUVRData, LLC herby requests an amendment to Exemption 11268 to 

allow flights higher than 400 feet above ground level (AGL) as long as the Operator obtains 

advanced approval from the FAA prior to any operation involving a structure over 400AGL as 

set forth in section 8.1.1.8.1 ofthe UAS Operations Manual submitted in the original exemption 

submission. Operator will remain in close proximity and will at all times operate no more than 

50 feet above such a structure. Flights at the higher altitude will only be for the short durations 

necessary to collect image data. 

HUVRData, LLC wishes to operate within the limits the FAA has issued grants of 

exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in our petition. 

In Grants ofExemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA- 2014- 0352), 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA- 2014- 0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see 

Docket No. FAA-2014- 0382), and 11213 to AeryonLabs, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA-2014- 0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned 

aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or 

crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in 

addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to fmd that the UAS operation enabled 

by this exemption is in the public interest. Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential 

document, the UAS Operations Manual. 

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for 

an amendment to the Exemption. 

cc: 
James Williams 

Robert Pappas 

Jake Troutman 

Dean Griffith, Esq. 

John McGraw 

Jonathan B. Hill
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) of Keating Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Timothy J. Keating, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.








/s/ Timothy J. KeatingName:
Timothy J. KeatingDate:
February 24, 2014
Description of Arrangement for Directors Fees.



 EXHIBIT 10.23 
  
 Description of Arrangement for
Directors Fees 
 The table below sets forth the amount of fees payable to outside directors of Webster Financial Corporation for their
services as Directors for the period April 2009 to April 2010. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will conduct its annual compensation review in April 2010 in connection with the Company’s annual meeting. The Committee may decide
to revise the Schedule shown below at the meeting or at another meeting. 
  

			
	 Event
	  	 Amount

	 Annual Retainer
	  	$32,000 ($25,000 payable in the form of shares of restricted stock pursuant to the 2001 Directors Retainer Fees Plan, and $7,000 payable in cash)
	 Board Meeting Attended
	  	 $1,200

	 Committee Meeting Attended
	  	 $1,200

	 Telephonic Board Meeting
	  	 $600

	 Telephonic Committee Meeting
	  	 $600

	 Separate Webster Financial Corporation and Webster
	  	$2,000
	 Bank Board Meetings (Held on the Same Day)
	  	
	 Annual Retainer for Lead Director which includes fee as Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee
	  	$20,000
	 Annual Retainer for the Chair of the
	  	$15,000
	 Audit Committee
	  	
	 Annual Retainer for the Chair of the Compensation Committee
	  	$7,500
	 Annual Retainer for the Chair of the Risk Committee
	  	$7,500
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jimmy D. BURNS, Appellant.

No. ED 106524

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: June 25, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Jedd C. Schneider, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

For Respondent: ERIC S. SCHMITT, Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Jimmy D. Burns ("Appellant") appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of attempted statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.062.2(1) RSMo. Appellant was sentenced as a prior and persistent felony offender to life imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*528The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
----

| 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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:              November 9,      2008                                    |   | By:  /s/ Stephen L.      Price                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   | Stephen      L. Price, President, Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   | And      Chairman of the Board ofDirectors                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |