alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60011

Summary Calendar

Rosa Luz Rivera-Fiallos, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A097 836 449

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Rosa Luz Rivera-Fiallos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions

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

her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen and 

rescind her in absentia order of removal. Rivera-Fiallos argues that she is 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

July 2, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60011 Document: 00515924178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2021
No. 20-60011

2

entitled to reopening and rescission of her order of removal because, as she 

attested in her affidavit, she did not receive notice of her removal 

proceedings. Because she does not challenge the BIA’s determination that 

she was not a minor when she entered the United States and that the notice 

to appear was not defective, she has abandoned review of those issues. See 

Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). 

We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 

2017). An in absentia order of removal may be rescinded if an alien 

demonstrates that she did not receive notice of the hearing. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). 

While a motion to reopen focuses on whether the alien actually 

received the necessary notice and not whether the notice was properly 

mailed, there is a presumption of effective service when a notice of hearing is 

sent by regular mail. Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 506 (5th Cir. 2018). In 

determining whether this presumption is rebutted, “‘all relevant evidence,’ 

both direct and circumstantial, should be considered.” Navarrete-Lopez v. 

Barr, 919 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I. & N. 

Dec. 665, 674-75 (BIA 2008)). Because the BIA properly considered the 

totality of the circumstances in determining that Rivera-Fiallosfailed to rebut 

the presumption of receipt, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in upholding 

the denial of the motion to reopen. See Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 

144, 150-51 (5th Cir. 2018). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. The 

Government’s motion for summary disposition, which is docketed as a 

motion for summary affirmance, is DENIED as moot. 

Case: 20-60011 Document: 00515924178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2021
**Exhibit 10.4**

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

This Amendment No. 1 toEmployment Agreement (this “First Amendment”), by and between Conrad Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Lewis J. Derbes, Jr. (“Executive”) is hereby entered into effective as of September 15,2003. 

 

**W I T N E S S E T H:**

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and Executive have entered into that certainEmployment Agreement, dated as of September 3, 2002 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein; 

 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, for and in consideration of the continued employmentof Executive by the Company and the payment of salary and other compensation to Executive by the Company, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

**Section 1.**    Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain infull force and effect. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning given to them in the Employment Agreement. 

 

**Section 2.**    The first sentence of paragraph 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety asfollows: 

 

The base salary payable to Executive during the termof his 

employment hereunder shall be $133,000 per year, payable in 

accordance with the Company’s payroll procedures for executives, 

but not less frequently than monthly. 

 

*[signatures appear on the following page]*

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be duly executed and signed asof the date indicated above. 

 

CONRAD INDUSTRIES, INC.

By:
 /s/ MICHAEL J. HARRIS   
Michael J. Harris

Chairman, Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Conrad Industries, Inc.

 

EXECUTIVE
/s/ LEWIS J. DERBES, JR.Lewis J. Derbes, Jr.
 

Amendment No. 1to Employment Agreement 

Lewis J. Derbes, Jr. 

Page 2
First Amendment to Lease



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE 
 This First Amendment to Lease (the
“Amendment”) is dated this 2nd day of June, 2009, by and between
Horizon West Property Management, Inc., a Colorado corporation hereinafter referred to as “Landlord”, as agent for Morgan Holdings LLC, GratefulDV LLC, and DNT Timberline Lakes LLC (collectively, “Owner”), and
Lionbridge US, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Tenant”. Mitchell M. Morgan (“Morgan”) is the sole member of Morgan Holdings, LLC and David P. Veldman (“Veldman”) is the sole member of
GratefulDV, LLC. Morgan and Veldman are real estate professionals and real estate brokers licensed in the State of Colorado acting on their own behalf. 
 RECITALS: 
 A. On or about the 23rd day of December, 2008, Landlord and Tenant entered into a lease agreement (the “Lease”) pertaining to
certain real property and improvements located at 760 Whalers Way, Building C, Suite #110, in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado (the “Demised Premises”). 
 B. Tenant desires to exercise its option to renew the Lease for six (6) months in accordance with the terms set forth in Article 11.20A of the
Lease, and Landlord and Tenant wish to amend the Lease to extend the term, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and provisions set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

  

	 	1.	The term of the Lease shall be extended by six (6) months, commencing on July 1, 2009 and expiring at 12:00 PM (Noon) on December 31, 2009 (the “Extension
Period”). 

  

	 	2.	The Minimum Rent during the Extension Period shall be Seven Hundred Fifty Eight and 00/100 Dollars ($758.00) per month, commencing on July 1, 2009. 

  

	 	3.	Article 11.20A “Option to Renew” is hereby deleted in its entirety. 

  

	 	4.	All other terms and conditions of the Lease, except as amended by this First Amendment to Lease, shall remain in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Lease, effective the day and year first written above. 
  

											
	LANDLORD:	  	HORIZON WEST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., a Colorado corporation, as agent for Owner
						
		  	By:	  	/s/ Mitchell Morgan                                  
          	  		  	    6/10/09    	  	
		  		  	Mitchell M. Morgan, President	  		  	       Date	  	
		
	TENANT:	  	LIONBRIDGE US, INC., a Delaware corporation
						
		  	By:	  	/s/ Satish Maripuri                                  
            	  		  	  June 8, 2009  	  	
		  		  	Satish Maripuri	  		  	       Date	  	
		  	Title:	  	Chief Operating Officer                                  
    	  		  		  	

  

 35
Home ** About ** Meetings and Events ** Business Meeting

# Business Meeting

**Date:** June 13, 2024 **Time:** 9:00 AM**Location:**Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania **To join by Zoom:**https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89292000071?pwd=S1E2Qi9QNHUyTkhjY3ZoRUJJeXpqUT09**Meeting ID:** 892 9200 0071**Passcode:** SRBC4423! **To join by phone:** 1-305-224-1968 or 1-309-205-3325**Meeting ID:** 892 9200 0071

----

      -  Business Meeting Notice published in Federal Register 
      -  Guidelines for Business Meetings 
      -  Business Meeting Minutes 
      -  Submit General Comments  The deadline to submit general comments is June 10, 2024. 

----

Business Meetings are noticed in the Federal Register and are the forum for official Commission actions. Thepublic is welcome to attend the Business Meetings, but the opportunity for formal comment is not typicallyprovided. In rare instances, an item may be added to the agenda after notice has been posted. To allow thepublic to address such items and any other relevant issues, at the discretion of the Commission chair and astime allows, the Commission typically provides time for an informal discussion after the adjournment of thebusiness meeting.

The Commission adopted an Access to Records Policy to assure the public has access to Commission recordsconsistent with theSusquehanna River Basin Compact.As a federal-interstate compact agency, the Commission is committed to open and transparent operations andaccessibility of records to the public.
      -  Access to Records Policy 
      -  Records Processing Fee Schedule
#### STATE v. QUEENIE PERRY BROWN.

(Piled 13 April, 1960.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bickett, J.,*September 1959 Criminal Term, of Waice.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging murder of one George Brown.

Plea- — Not guilty.

The Solicitor for the State did not ask for verdict of murder in first degree, but did ask for verdict of murder in second degree or manslaughter as the jury should find the facts to be.

Upon trial in Superior Court the State offered evidence tending to show that defendant and her husband, the deceased, on the morning of 15 August 1959, were heard to be fussing in their house; that he was seen to come out of the door, followed by defendant who hit him back of the head with a rifle butt and, upon his turning to face her she shot him in the stomach — inflicting injury from which he died.

Defendant on other hand testified and contended contrariwise.

Verdict: Guilty of manslaughter.

Judgment: That the defendant be confined in the quarters provided for women by the State prison Department under the provisions of G.S. 148-27 for the term of not less than seven years nor more than ten years.

Defendant excepted to and appeals therefrom to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Harry Mc-Galliard for the State.*

*Herman L. Taylor, Samuel S. Mitchell for defendant, appellant.*

PER CuRiam.

The case was properly presented to the jury. And the assignments of error duly considered fail to reveal prejudicial error for which a new trial should be granted. Hence in the judgment from which appeal is taken, there is

No error.