alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5(d)


 


AMENDMENT NO. 4


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 4
to the Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), dated August 3, 2017, is by and between Drone Aviation Holding Corp.,
a Nevada corporation with an address 11651 Central Parkway #118, Jacksonville, FL 32224 (the “Company”), and
Felicia Hess (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Employment Agreement on May 18, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Amendment No. 1 on October 2, 2015 (Hess Amendment No. 1); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Amendment No. 2 on April 27, 2016 (Hess Amendment No. 2); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Amendment No. 3 on September 26, 2016 (Hess Amendment No. 3); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish
to further amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below, with the understanding that all other provisions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain unchanged;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.          Section
4 (e) of the Employment Agreement- Compensation, Additional Fringe Benefit- is hereby struck from the agreement.


 


2.         
The terms and conditions of all other sections of the Employment Agreement
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this agreement as of the date first stated above.


 





	 	DRONE
    AVIATION HOLDING CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Kendall Carpenter
	 	 	Name:
    Kendall W. Carpenter
	 	 	Title:  
    Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Felicia Hess
	 	 	Name:
    Felicia Hess
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, 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 November 20, 2012

d1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145480

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145480

COA: 307330

Wayne CC: 07

- 005400

- FC

BERNARD B

- GREGORY ALLEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

In re:

JOSE I. ABASCAL CASE NO. 21-13823-AJC

AKA JOSE ABASCAL CHAPTER 13

AKA JOSE INDALECIO ABASCAL

AKA JOSE INDALECIO ABASCAL PARRADO

AKA JOSE ABASCAL PARRADO

AKA JOSE I ABASCAL PARRADO

Debtor. 

___________________________________/

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO VALUE AND DETERMINE 

SECURED STATUS OF LIEN ON PERSONAL PROPERTY

Creditor, Capital One Auto Finance, a division of Capital One, N.A., responds to Debtor’s

Motion to Value and Determine Secured Status of Lien on Personal Property (Doc. No. 20)

(“Debtor’s Motion”) and states:

1. Creditor is the lienholder on the title to the following vehicle: 

2014 Honda Accord Sedan 4D Sport I4

VIN: 1HGCR2F59EA219415 (“Vehicle”).

2. Creditor filed Proof of Claim Number 3-1 in the amount of $13,270.43

3. Debtor’s Motion proposes to value Creditor’s secured claim on the Vehicle to 

$12,000.00, pursuant to Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. Creditor believes the replacement value of the Vehicle is higher than stated in the 

Plan, specifically $16,050.00, pursuant to the N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide attached hereto 

as Exhibit “A” and the Court’s reasoning in In re Hauser, 405 BR 684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009) 

(Olson, J.) and In re Ortiz, 2007 WL 1176019 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2007) (Ray, J.).

5. Accordingly, Creditor is over-secured and its claim cannot be modified. 

Case 21-13823-AJC Doc 23 Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 3
6. Notwithstanding the above, if an agreement cannot be reached amicably between 

the parties as to the value of the Vehicle, then Creditor will conduct an appraisal of the Vehicle 

prior to an evidentiary hearing. 

WHEREFORE, Creditor, respectfully requests the Court deny Debtor’s Motion or, in the 

alternative, set the matter for hearing and for such other and further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

/s/ Gavin N. Stewart

Gavin N. Stewart, Esquire

Florida Bar Number 52899

P.O. Box 5703

Clearwater, FL 33758

P: (727) 565-2653

F: (727) 213-9022

E: bk@stewartlegalgroup.com

Counsel for Creditor

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via CM/ECF notice and 

first-class mail to the parties below this 30th day of June 2021. 

/s/ Gavin N. Stewart

Gavin N. Stewart, Esquire

VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL

Jose I. Abascal

48 Essex Avenue

Hialeah, FL 33010-5030

VIA CM/ECF NOTICE 

Robert Sanchez, Esq

355 W 49 St.

Hialeah, FL 33012

Nancy K. Neidich

POB 279806

Miramar, FL 33027

Case 21-13823-AJC Doc 23 Filed 06/30/21 Page 2 of 3
U.S. Trustee

Office of the US Trustee

51 S.W. 1st Ave.

Suite 1204

Miami, FL 33130

Case 21-13823-AJC Doc 23 Filed 06/30/21 Page 3 of 3
B2030 (Form 2030) (12/15)

United States Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division

In re NITV LLC Case No.

Debtor(s) Chapter 7

DISCLOSURE OF COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR

1. Pursuant to 11 U .S.C. § 329(a) and Fed. Bankr. P. 2016(b), I certify that I am the attorney for the above named debtor(s) and that

compensation paid to me within one year before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, or agreed to be paid to me, for services rendered or to

be rendered on behalf of the debtor(s) in contemplation of or in connection with the bankruptcy case is as follows:

For legal services, I have agreed to accept $ 7,500.00

Prior to the filing of this statement I have received $ 7,500.00

Balance Due $ 0.00

2. The source of the compensation paid to me was:

 Debtor  Other (specify):

3. The source of compensation to be paid to me is:

 Debtor  Other (specify):

4.  I have not agreed to share the above-disclosed compensation with any other person unless they are members and associates of my law

firm.

 I have agreed to share the above-disclosed compensation with a person or persons who are not members or associates of my law firm. A

copy of the agreement, together with a list of the names of the people sharing in the compensation is attached.

5. In return for the above-disclosed fee, I have agreed to render legal service for all aspects of the bankruptcy case, including:

a. Analysis of the debtor's financial situation, and rendering advice to the debtor in determining whether to file a petition in bankruptcy;

b. Preparation and filing of any petition, schedules, statement of affairs and plan which may be required;

c. Representation of the debtor at the meeting of creditors and confirmation hearing, and any adjourned hearings thereof;

d. [Other provisions as needed]

6. By agreement with the debtor(s), the above-disclosed fee does not include the following service:

Negotiation of contested issues, at motion hearings, or representation involving any actual or potential

adversarial matter is not included in the flat fee and will require additional formal arrangements and retainer

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the foregoing is a complete statement of any agreement or arrangement for payment to me for representation of the debtor(s) in

this bankruptcy proceeding.

August 31, 2021 /s/ Julianne Frank

Date Julianne Frank

Signature of Attorney

Julianne Frank, Atty at Law

4495 Military Trl Ste 107

Jupiter, FL 33458-4818

julianne@jrfesq.com

Name of law firm

Software Copyright (c) 2021 CINGroup - www.cincompass.com

Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 4 Filed 08/31/21 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Corrections]
[Page 29449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-50610]



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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 21

RIN 2900-AH60


Veterans and Dependents Education: Miscellaneous

Correction

    In rule document 96-12548 beginning on page 26107 in the issue of 
Friday, May 24, 1996, make the following correction:


Sec. 21.3041  [Corrected]

    On page 26108, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 10 to 
Sec. 21.3041, in the second line ``eligibility'' should read 
``eligilibity''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. CLEMENT DAVID KING, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-30057 D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00015-SEH-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 11, 2014 Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Following his conviction for sexual abus e of a minor and attempted receipt of child pornography, Clement King was sentenced to 365 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, a panel of this court vacated his sentence after determining that the district court committed procedural error in calculating King’s Sentencing 

# FILED
DEC 16 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Guidelines range. United States v. King , 468 F. App’x 734 (9th Cir. 2012). On remand, the district court properly calcu lated the Guidelines range as 151 to 188 months, but imposed the same sentence of 365 months’ imprisonment. In this appeal, King asserts that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for “abuse of discretion.” United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). We may only vacate the sentence if we have “a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear erro r of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing the relevant factors.” United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez , 567 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009). In light of th is deferential standard of review, we AFFIRM.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

          - 42 CFR Part 414
          - [CMS-1561-NC]
          - RIN 0938-AP59

### Correction

In proposed rule document E9-2839 beginning on page 6557 in the issue of Tuesday, February 10, 2009, make the following correction:

                    On page 6557, in the third column, in the                     **DATES**                     heading, “February 13, 2009” should read “February 12, 2009”.                

[FR Doc. Z9-2839 Filed 2-10-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 24210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-10501]



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / 
Corrections

[[Page 24210]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

Correction

    In notice document 98-10470, beginning on page 19964, in the issue 
of Wednesday, April 22, 1998, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 19984, in the second column, in the 24th line, 
``Amendment No.: 221.'' should read ``Amendment No.: 220.''.
    2. On the same page, in the same column, after line 39, insert the 
following text:

IES Utilities Inc, Central Iowa Power Cooperative, and Corn Belt Power 
Cooperative, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn 
County, Iowa

    Date of application for amendment: February 3, 1998.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the 
definitions of Cold Condition and Cold Shutdown and adds a new section, 
3.17, ``Vessel Hydrostatic Pressure and Leak Testing,'' to the 
Technical Specifications to specifically allow reactor vessel 
hydrostatic pressure testing to be performed during plant shutdown.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 1998.
    Effective date: March 31, 1998.
    Amendment No.: 221.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 26, 1998 (63 
FR 9874). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 1998.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Cedar Rapids Public Library, 
500 First Street, SE., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Vehicle Valuation

Customer: Abascal, Jose

File No.:

Print Date: June 28, 2021

Vehicle Description:

Retail: $

VIN:

Wholesale/Trade-in: $

Optional Equipment/Adjustments

2014 HONDA Accord Sedan 4D Sport I4

1HGCR2F59EA219415

 13950.00 11450.00

Base Values

Retail: $ 16050.00 Retail/Wholesale Average: $ 14800.00

Total Adjusted N.A.D.A. Used Car Guide Values

Reference 04/2021 Southeastern

Estimated Miles 51000

N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide

$ 2100.00

Case 21-13823-AJC Doc 23-1 Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 1
Case 21-10053-SMG Doc 43 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 21-10053-SMG Doc 43 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 21-10053-SMG Doc 43 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 21-10053-SMG Doc 43 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 21-10053-SMG Doc 43 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 5
GATEWAY RENELLIE, LLC, etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL REALTY, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0572

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Deaundrea Markese FORD v. STATE

CR-15-1410

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ilana RIGWAN, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SOUTH BEACH BAYSIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Corrections]
[Page 12859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: Z7-3916]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55371; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-06]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change 
Relating to Port Fees as Modified by Amendment No. 1

Correction

    In notice document E7-3916 beginning on page 10287 in the issue of 
Wednesday, March 7, 2007, make the following correction:
    On page 10288, in the second column, in the first paragraph, in the 
last two lines, ``March 27, 2007'' should read ``March 28, 2007''.

[FR Doc. Z7-3916 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
SERVED: AUGUST 29, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

· WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DGW, INC. d/b/a MELROSE T-TOP, INTL 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0546 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013S0700205) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

' ) 

.:: .. J 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Richard I. Williams, Respondent's Counsel 

Griffin Williams LLP 

501 W. State Street 

Suite 203 

Geneva, IL 60134 

TEL: 630-457-1205 

FAX: 630-262-0644 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0546 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search:  Meteor Crater

Filters

              - multimedia_video(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - california(2)
              - (-)district of columbia(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - virginia(1)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        March 22, 2007        PubTalk 3/2007 — Impact!
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

September 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50950

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaint iffAppellee,

versus

CARLOS LEVARIO,

also known as Carlos Leverio,

DefendantAppellant.

--------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-01-CR-134-1

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

Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following a jury trial, Carlos Levario was convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess

500 grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of a iding and abetting

possession with intent to distribute the same amount of cocaine. The district court sentenced him

to 63 months in prison and four years of supervised release. Levario now appeals his convictions,-2-

arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show that he knowingly took part in t he crimes of

conviction.

Because Levario moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence, the standard

of review is “whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” U nited States v. Ortega Reyna

, 148 F.3d

540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). This court “consider[s] the evidence in t he light mo st favorable to the

government, drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in support of the verdict.”

Id.

When viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence was sufficient for

a rea so nable jury to conclude that Levario knew that he was to assist in a cocaine-distribution

operati on by receiving cocaine. The evidence offered at trial was sufficient for a reasonable juror to

conclude that Levario had spoken with another member of the conspiracy several times on the day

of the delivery and that Levario had been given instructions concerning the delivery of the cocaine.

This conclusion is supported by the large amount of drugs with which Levario was to be entrusted

and the suspicious nature of his behavior in relation to the delivery. S ee United States v. ValdioseraGodinez

, 932 F.2d 1093, 1096 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Martinez-Moncivais

, 14 F.3d 1030,

1034-35 (5th Cir. 1994).

Levario has not sho wn that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his

convictions. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-61181

Hortencia Velazquez Adame; Everardo Perez 

Velazquez; Luis Aldeir Perez Velazquez; Arileny Perez 

Velazquez, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 925 454

BIA No. A208 925 455

BIA No. A208 925 456

BIA No. A208 925 457

Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 15, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-61181 Document: 00516358972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
No. 20-61181

2

Hortencia Velazquez Adame, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing

her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s 

decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 

220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial 

evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.

Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Because Velazquez Adame failed to exhaust her claims concerning the 

validity of her notice to appear and her membership in a particular social 

group (PSG) consisting of those who have cooperated with law enforcement 

officials we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Flores-Abarca v. Barr, 937 

F.3d 473, 477-78 (5th Cir. 2019); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 

2004). She identifies no error in the BIA’s determination that she was 

ineligible for asylum or withholding of relief because she failed to show 

membership in a cognizable PSG. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 

511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Finally, because her argument concerning her CAT 

claim is speculative, she has not shown that substantial evidence compels a 

conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on this issue. See Morales v. Sessions, 

860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th 

Cir. 2006). The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED 

in part.

1 Hortencia Velazquez Adame is the lead applicant, and the other three derivative 

applicants are her children. 

Case: 20-61181 Document: 00516358972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2022