alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Emmanuel STEADMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6899.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

*292Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Roderick Emmanuel Steadman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 2, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on May 27, 2003.* Because Steadman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
#### CAMPBELL v. WALKER.

No. 1876.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1938.

Griffin T. Hawkins and J. J. Tritico, both of Lake Charles, and E. S. Muse, of St. Francisville, for appellant.

Borron, Owen & Borron, of Baton Rouge, and James H. Kilbourne, of St. Francisville, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

This plaintiff was struck by the same car driven by defendant’s son as struck Savoie, and what is said in the companion suit of Savoie against this same defendant 183 So. 530, on the question of liability, applies to this case also, and the only question to decide in this case is the amount of damages to which Campbell is entitled.

Campbell received a fracture of the right scapula — shoulder blade — and a bruise on his right leg. He was in the United States Marine Hospital for about three weeks, and returned to the camp and did light work around the kitchen about six weeks after his injury. It appears that his shoulder and leg injury has recovered, except for occasional slight pain in the right shoulder. We do not consider the injuries very serious, and they are not of a permanent nature. He did suffer considerable pain with his shoulder for the first few weeks after the injury. We think an award of $500 for his physical injuries, pain and suffering, together with $45 for one and one half month’s loss of time at $30 per month, will adequately compensate him for the injuries.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff, Robert H. Campbell, do have and recover judgment of the defendant, Levin M. Walker, in the full sum of $545, with legal interest thereon from judicial demand, and for cost in both courts.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon NAVA-BANUELOS, aka Chilindrino, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30271. D.C. No. CR-00-00330-Z-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Ramon Nava-Banuelos appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 135-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Nava-Banuelos has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Nava-Banuelos has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

*637Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 88, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Nava-Banuelos’ motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### FISCHER v. PALMISANO’S SUCCESSION.

No. 14561.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 24, 1933.

E. S: Spiro, of New Orleans, for appellant.

K. V. Richard, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that no citation of appeal was prayed for by appellant nor served upon ap-pellee, although the appeal was taken by motion filed at a term of court subsequent to that at which the judgment was rendered.

It appears from the record that the facts are as stated, in the motion to dismiss the appeal.

In Palmisano & Palmisano v. Bonner, 167 La. 1015, 120 So. 630, 631, in which there was presented to the Supreme Court of Louisiana a situation identical with that now before us, that court said:

> “It-appears from this motion that no citation 'was 'Prayed for, or was ordered in the order granting the appeal, nor was any citation issued,-asifar. as the record discloses.

> “Under this state of facts, the motion to dismiss' must prevail. ‘The omission of appellant 'toi-ask.fof citation of appeal and to have ¡1⁄8 served on appellee, when the order of appeal ¡had been granted on motion in open court at- a term different from that on which the jUdgnlent,.was rendered, is fatal to the appeal which must be dismissed.’ Wheeler & Pierson v. G. A. Peterkin et al., 38 La. Ann. 663; Smith v. O’Reilly Elevator Co., 134 La. 635, 64 So. 494; King et al. v. First Methodist Church, 137 La. 879, 69 So. 593.

> “As stated in Smith v. O’Reilly Elevator Case, above cited: ‘It is well settled that, when an appeal is taken at a subsequent term, the appellee must be cited.’ McGaw v. O’Bierne, 124 La. 989, 50 So. 819; Gagneaux v. Desonier, 109 La. 460, 33 So. 561; Wheeler & Pierson v. Peterkin et al., 38 La. Ann. 663; Trounstine & Co. v. Ware & Munn, 39 La. Ann. 939, 3 So. 122.”

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained and, accordingly, the appeal is disi-missed.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7115 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to expedite approval of exports of small 

volumes of natural gas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2022 

Mrs. CAMMACK (for herself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. LONG, Mr. 

PALAZZO, Ms. HERRELL, Mr. GIMENEZ, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mr. PFLUGER, Ms. SALAZAR, Mr. MAST, Mr. 

MURPHY of North Carolina, Mr. DUNN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. PERRY, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. HUDSON, 

Mr. BURGESS, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. BRADY, Mr. CAWTHORN, and Mr. 

DONALDS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to expedite approval of 

exports of small volumes of natural gas, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Scale LNG Ac5 cess Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7115 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF EXPORT OF CERTAIN 

2 VOLUMES OF NATURAL GAS. 

3 Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) 

4 is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(c) EXPEDITED APPLICATION AND APPROVAL

7 PROCESS.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection 

9 (a), the following shall be deemed to be consistent 

10 with the public interest, and applications for such 

11 importation or exportation shall be granted without 

12 modification or delay: 

13 ‘‘(A) The importation of the natural gas 

14 referred to in subsection (b). 

15 ‘‘(B) The exportation of natural gas in a 

16 volume up to and including 51,750,000,000 

17 cubic feet per year. 

18 ‘‘(C) The exportation of natural gas to a 

19 nation with which there is in effect a free trade 

20 agreement requiring national treatment for 

21 trade in natural gas. 

22 ‘‘(2) EXCLUSION.—Subparagraphs (B) and (C) 

23 of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any nation sub24 ject to sanctions imposed by the United States.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
July 23, 2015 Nehemiah Steele/ Jr. TDCJ#1810776 W. G. MCCONNELL UNIT 

### 3001 South Emily Bc^
— 

# BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102 Dih COURTOFAPPEALS/ *?thCourtofAppeaiknigfrii-.t I

CATHY S. LOSK, Clerk TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 1517 WEST FRONT STREET/ SUITE 354 TYLER, TEXAS 75702

RE: Case Number: 12-12-00327-CR Trial Court Case No. 007-1590-11 Style: NEHEMIAH STEELE, JR.

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS Honorable Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk: 

### In reference to a previous price quote to purchase Trial Records. My family has informed that we are unable to pay the one payment of $468.00 in full. Therefore, I petition your office to determine whether the Office of the Clerk provides a Payment-Plan. If this is a possibility, please provide your procedures. 

### I truly appreciate your assistance in this matter of impor tant. Thank you. Sincerely,

Nehemiah Steele, Jr." APPELLANTChiefJustice James T.Worthen 

## Twelfth Court ofAppeals Clerk Cathy S. Lusk
Justices Sam Griffith Brian Hoyle 

### Monday, December 15, 2014 Nehemiah Steele Jr. #1810776 McConnell Unit 

### 3001 South Emily Dr. Beeville, TX 78102 RE: Case Number: 12-12-00327-CR Trial Court Case Number: 007-1590-11 Chief StaffAttorney Margaret Hussey



### Style: Nehemiah Steele, Jr. The State ofTexas 

### This is to acknowledge receipt ofyour communication dated December 11, 2014. In response to your inquiries, please be advised that: 

### 1. The copies you have requested total 483 pages. The total cost to purchase these records will 

## be$458.00 plus anestimated $10.00 shipping fee. Upon receipt ofpayment in theamount of $468.00, the copies will beforwarded to you. Volume 10 (6/18/12) 

### Very truly yours, Volume 11 (6/19/12) v Volume 12 (6/20/12) 

## CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK Volume 13 (6/25/12) Volume 14 

## AshleyYountJ Deputy Clerk contains 5 Pages 

### contains 165 pages 

### contains 228 pages contains 27 Pages 

## (8/3/12) contains 58 Pages

1517WestFrontStreet • Suite 354 • Tyler, TX75702 • Tel: 903-593-8471 • Fax:903-593-2193 

### ServingAnderson,Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, SanAugustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van Zandtand Wood Counties http://www.txcourts.gov/12thcoa.aspx
**EXHIBIT
  32.2**



**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 quarterly
  Report of
  PRINCETON
  AMERICAN CORPORATION
  (the "Company")
  on Form 10-QSB
  for the period
  ending August
  31, 2003 as
  filed with
  the Securities
  and Exchange
  Commission
  on the date
  hereof (the
  "Report"),
  pursuant to
  18 U.S.C.
  § 1350,
  as adopted
  pursuant to
  § 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002,
  I, Scott Bird,
  Controller
  and Principal
  Accounting
  Officer of
  the Company,
  certify, that
  to the best
  of my knowledge:



(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.







/s/
  Scott E. Bird

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

Scott
  E. Bird

Secretary, CFO and Director



October 14, 2003









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



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906
  HAS BEEN PROVIDED
  TO PRINCETON
  AMERICAN CORPORATION
  AND WILL BE
  RETAINED BY
  PRINCETON
  AMERICAN CORPORATION
  AND FURNISHED
  TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20552]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-161695-04]
RIN 1545-BE23


Farmer and Fisherman Income Averaging; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference 
to temporary regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice of proposed rulemaking by 
cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-161695-04) that was 
published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 (73 FR 
42538) relating to the averaging of farm and fishing income in 
computing income tax liability.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Pfalzgraf, (202) 622-4960 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary 
regulations (REG-161695-04) that is the subject of this correction is 
under section 1301 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, REG-161695-04 contains an error that may prove to be 
misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the proposed rulemaking by cross-
reference to temporary regulations (REG-161695-04), which was the 
subject of FR Doc. E8-16664, is corrected as follows:
    On page 42538, column 2, in the preamble, under the caption ``For 
Further Information Contact'', line 2, the language ``Amy Pfalzgraf, 
(202) 622-4950 (not a`` is corrected to read ``Amy Pfalzgraf (202) 622-
4960 (not a``.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E8-20552 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION, EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,056,437
<SECURITIES>                                   526,055
<RECEIVABLES>                                  554,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     76,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,741,534
<PP&E>                                       2,944,760
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,698,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          382,705
<BONDS>                                      1,488,117
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,896
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,182,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,498,069
<SALES>                                        617,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,116,965
<CGS>                                          514,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,323,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,051,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             185,630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                601,079
<INCOME-TAX>                                   288,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            313,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   313,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22

</TABLE>
#### Douglas Ross, Respondent, v Auburn Memorial Hospital, Defendant, and Steve Collins, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Corning, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.—discovery.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JIMMIE MOHRLE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2042

[April 11, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Peter Holden, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 03-21132CF10A.

Jimmie Mohrle, Lowell, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Lori Whitaker, as Administratrix of the Estate of William D. Whitaker, Deceased, Appellant, v Mercy Hospital et al., Defendants, and James Ehinger et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum decision of Supreme Court (Kane, J.). We add only that defendants met their burden on the motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action by submitting proof in admissible form showing their entitlement to judgment in their favor and that plaintiff failed to meet her burden in opposition to the motion by the submission of expert medical opinion in admissible form *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 327; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 563). The unsworn letter submitted by plaintiff was not in admissible form *(see, Graves v Rochester Gen. Hosp.,*135 AD2d 1130). Here, because plaintiff did not rely in good faith on the belief that she was not required to identify her experts, there is no basis for remitting the matter to give plaintiff the opportunity to submit medical evidence in *898admissible form *(see, Maust v Arseneau,*116 AD2d 1012). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kane, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          26,725
<SECURITIES>                                     6,091
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,558
<ALLOWANCES>                                       730
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,227
<PP&E>                                       1,368,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 127,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,351,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,282
<BONDS>                                        565,522
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           557
<OTHER-SE>                                     636,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,351,517
<SALES>                                        420,152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               420,152
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  348,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,825
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,652
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (5,315)
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,858
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfredo Ortiz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered August 22, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced him to 4 *Vz*to 9 years’ imprisonment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The trial court erred when it refused to charge the defense of agency in this case, where a reasonable view of the evidence could have led the jury to conclude that defendant acted as a mere instrumentality of the buyer, thus supporting a theory of agency, which was the sole defense in this case. *(People v Roche,*45 NY2d 78, 86, *cert denied*439 US 958 [1978].) Specifically, defendant was entitled to the requested jury instruction based upon his testimony that he did not know the seller, and that he was acting solely on behalf of the buyer, a ''pretty woman”, who ultimately proved to be an undercover police officer. *(People v Roche,*45 NY2d 78, 83, *supra; People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, 55, *cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York,*439 US 930 [1978]; *People v*
      *62
      *Miano,*143 AD2d 777 [2d Dept 1988]; *People v Garay,*128 AD2d 413 [1st Dept 1987]; *see generally, People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 75, *cert denied*439 US 935 [1978] [enumerating the factors to be considered in determining whether an agency relationship existed].)

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Concur —Ross, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
EX-10.27



 






EXHIBIT 10.27









Description of Arrangement for Directors Fees



The following sets forth the amount of fees payable to outside directors of Webster Financial
Corporation for their services as Directors in fiscal year 2005:




	 	 	 
	Event	 	Fee
	Annual Retainer
	 	$20,000 payable in the form of shares of common stock pursuant to the 2001 Directors Retainer Fees Plan.
	 
	 	 
	Board Meeting Attended
	 	$1,250
	 
	 	 
	Committee Meeting Attended
	 	$1,000
	 
	 	 
	Telephonic Board Meeting
	 	$625
	 
	 	 
	Telephonic Committee Meeting
	 	$500
	 
	 	 
	Separate Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank
Board Meetings Held on the Same Day
	 	$1,750
	 
	 	 
	Annual Retainer for the Chairman of the Audit Committee
	 	$10,000
	 
	 	 
	Annual Retainer for the Chairpersons of the
Compensation Committee and the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee
	 	$5,000
	 
	 	 
	Annual Retainer for Lead Director
	 	$20,000