alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALONZO DALE JONES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-4657

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALONZO DALE JONES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00035-WO-1; 1:18-cr-00058-

WO-1)

Submitted: June 11, 2020 Decided: June 15, 2020
2

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig M. Cooley, COOLEY LAW OFFICE, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew 

G. T. Martin, United States Attorney, Nicole R. DuPre, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Alonzo Dale Jones, Jr., of possession with intent to distribute 28 

grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, 

a quantity of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, and a 

quantity of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of Oxycodone, all in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2018). Based on these convictions, the district court 

revoked the term of supervised release Jones was serving for a 2010 conviction and 

imposed a 36-month revocation sentence, to run consecutively to the 130-month sentence

imposed for the new criminal conduct. In these consolidated appeals, Jones challenges his 

convictions and the revocation of his term of supervised release. He argues that counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the 

jury’s consideration of the 2010 conviction. 

Generally, claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal. 

United States v. Maynes, 880 F.3d 110, 113 n.1 (4th Cir. 2018). Instead, such claims should 

be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion to permit adequate development of the 

record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 215, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). An exception 

exists, however, when “an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of 

the record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016).

Because the record before us does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance 

of counsel, we conclude that Jones’ claim should be raised in a § 2255 motion. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 
4

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

36 CFR Ch. VIII
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda.

SUMMARY: The following Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are scheduled for
development. They are submitted herein for publication in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Advisory Council contact person for Unified Agenda
matters is Javier E. Marques, Associate General Counsel, 202-517-0192, 401 F Street, NW., Suite 308,
Washington, DC 20001.
Dated: October 22, 2014.

NAME: Javier Marques,

Associate General Counsel.The 1 Regulatory Agendas

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation - Proposed Rule

Title Regulation Identifier Number Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Freedom of Information Act Regulations Update 3010-AA07

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ( ACHP ) RIN: 3010 -AA07

View Related Documents

Title: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Freedom of Information Act Regulations Update Abstract: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is revising its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations, 36 CFR part 810, which were last updated in 1981, in order to comply with the 2007 Open Government Act, to reflect the ACHP's business practices, and correct obsolete information.

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 36 CFR 810 (Revision) (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 5 USC 552, The Freedom of Information Act Legal Deadline: None

Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite NPRM 12/00/2014

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Javier E. Marques Associate General Counsel Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 401 F Street, NW., Suite 308, Washington, DC 20001-2637 Washington , DC 20001 -2637 Phone: 202 517-0192 FAX: 202 517-6382 E-Mail: jmarques@achp.gov
July 16, 2010

MEMORANDUM

TO: Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133

SUBJECT: Supplemental Materials for Canola Oil Biodiesel

This memorandum accompanies information related to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) analysis of lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for canola oil biodiesel. To 

facilitate public review, below is a brief description of additional data, reports, and references for 

canola oil biodiesel.

1. Memo to EPA from U.S. Canola Association & Canola Biodiesel Stakeholders

This document contains background and general information on canola and canola biodiesel 

production. 

2. Canola LCA Data report

This report prepared for the Canola Council of Canada, by (S&T)2 Consultants Inc., documents 

the practices of growing canola, crushing it to extract the oil, and then processing the oil to 

produce biodiesel. Data is provided for both Canadian and US canola.

3. U.S. Canola Baseline

This spreadsheet has United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. canola production 

projections through 2019-20. 

4. Land Trends in Canada

This spreadsheet shows how agricultural acreage has evolved over time in Canada. 

5. Tillage Practices in Western Canada

This spreadsheet shows the evolution of tillage practices in western Canada including 

extrapolated out to 2021.

6. North Dakota Fertilizer Survey

This spreadsheet shows results of a nitrogen fertilizer survey from North Dakota and has the 

nitrogen applied per area. This was from a 2009 ND survey. 

7. NBB Energy Use Survey

This document describes the results of an energy use survey conducted by the National Biodiesel 

Board (NBB) of biodiesel production energy use. The report also has the feedstock 

requirements. 

8. Canola Crushing Data

This spreadsheet has the oil yield data from Statistics Canada for canola crushing in Canada. It

has almost 40 years of monthly yield data. Data from the Statistics Canada website. 

http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-
win/cnsmcgi.pgm?regtkt=&C2Sub=&ARRAYID=10005&C2DB=PRD&VEC=&LANG=E&Src

hVer=2&ChunkSize=50&SDDSLOC=&ROOTDIR=CII/&RESULTTEMPLATE=CII/CII_PIC

K&ARRAY_PICK=1&SDDSID=&SDDSDESC= 

9. U.S. Soybean Use by Livestock

This document shows the use of soymeal in livestock rations for 2009.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>



                                                                                                         Exhibit 12
                  AMES DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                        (In thousands, except ratio data)

                                                                        Fiscal Year Ended
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             January 29,    January 30,    January 31,     January 25,    January 27,
                                                2000           1999            1998           1997           1996
                                             ------------   ------------   -------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                              <C>             <C>             <C>            <C>           <C>
Income (loss) before income taxes,
      extraordinary item and cumulative
      effect adjustment...................       (31,355)        52,605          53,633         26,804        (1,618)

Add:
      Interest expense....................        60,843         15,253          11,600         19,043         24,116
      Interest component of rental
      expense.............................        29,253         21,121          18,409         16,541         16,208
                                             ------------   ------------   -------------   ------------   ------------

Earnings available for fixed charges......        58,741         88,979          83,642         62,388         38,706

Fixed Charges:
      Interest expense....................        60,843         15,253          11,600         19,043         24,116
      Interest component of rental expense        29,253         21,121          18,409         16,541         16,208
                                             ------------   ------------   -------------   ------------   ------------

Total fixed charges.......................        90,096         36,374          30,009         35,584         40,324

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges........          0.7x           2.4x            2.8x           1.8x           1.0x

</TABLE>

For the purpose of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed charges,  earnings
consist of income before income taxes,  extraordinary item and cumulative effect
adjustment  plus fixed  charges (net of  capitalized  interest).  Fixed  charges
consist  of  interest  expense on all  indebtedness  and  capitalized  interest,
amortized premiums,  discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness,
and one-third of rent expense on operating leases  representing  that portion of
rent expense deemed by us to be  attributable  to interest.  For the fiscal year
ended January 29, 2000,  the amount of additional  earnings that would have been
required to cover fixed charges for this period was $31.4 million.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund VI, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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 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 Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 6, 2008                                                               
|                                                                                   
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                             
|Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)                                     

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

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        72,110,261
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  13,797,694
<MORTGAGE>                                      19,710
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              85,927,665
<CASH>                                       4,349,953
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          18,689,412
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       9,375,133
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             144,899,748
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             55,601,929
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         36,325,073
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,506,351
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,112,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               144,899,748
<PREMIUMS>                                  66,961,281
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          4,591,651
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             657,875
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 743,892
<BENEFITS>                                  46,208,356
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 17,993,215
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         6,538,408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,702,953
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (245,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,947,953
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,947,953
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              39,191,000
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         44,431,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                            1,777,000
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          24,941,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            23,625,000
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             36,833,000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-51011

consolidated with

No. 21-51023

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Sebastian Batz-Mejia, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-488-1

USDC No. 4:21-CR-525-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, 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

February 16, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-51011 Document: 00516205346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2022
No. 21-51011

c/w No. 21-51023

2

Sebastian Batz-Mejia appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal 

reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), along 

with the revocation of the term of supervised release he was serving at the 

time of the offense. He has not briefed the validity of the revocation of his 

supervised release or his revocation sentence and has, therefore, abandoned 

any challenge to them. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th 

Cir. 2010).

For the first time on appeal, Batz-Mejia contends that the 

enhancement of his illegal reentry sentence pursuant to § 1326(b) was 

unconstitutional because the fact of his prior conviction was not charged in 

his indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He has filed an 

unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief explaining that 

he has raised this issue only to preserve it for further review and conceding 

correctly that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th 

Cir. 2019). Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Batz-Mejia’s 

motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgments are

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-51011 Document: 00516205346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2022
Exhibit 24.3

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

WHEREAS, ALCAN INC., a Canadiancorporation (the "Company"), proposes shortly to file with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Actof 1934 as amended (the "Act"), the Annual Report on Form 10-Kpursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Act.

WHEREAS, the undersigned is anOfficer and/or a Director of the Company as indicated below;

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersignedhereby constitutes and appoints R. Millington, D. McAusland and P. Chenard andeach of them, as attorneys for the undersigned and in the undersigned's name,place and stead, and in each of the undersigned's offices and capacities as anOfficer and/or a Director of the Company, to execute and file such AnnualReport on Form 10-K, hereby giving and granting to said attorneys full powerand authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoeverrequisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully, to allintents and purposes, as the undersigned might or could do if personallypresent at the doing thereof, hereby ratifying and confirming all that saidattorneys may or shall lawfully do, or cause to be done, by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuntoset my hand this 11th day of March 2005. 

 

| Signed:   /s/ Jean-Paul Jacamon                                                               Name:    Jean-Paul JacamonTitle:       Director |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DON BENNY ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-83-159-A, CA-97-749-AM)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Benny Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Helen F. Fahey, United States

Attorney, Kenneth E. Melson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Anderson, Nos. CR-83-159-A; CA-97-749-AM

(E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 1997). Appellant’s motions for the production

of transcripts at government expense are denied, as is Appellant’s

misdirected Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We deny Appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel and 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
Exhibit 32
                                                                      ----------



                            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 AMREP  Corporation  (the  "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned
does hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

     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 Company.




/s/ Peter M. Pizza
-------------------------------
Peter M. Pizza*
Date: July 14, 2009

/s/ James Wall
-------------------------------
James Wall*
Date: July 14, 2009

/s/ Michael P. Duloc
-------------------------------
Michael P. Duloc*
Date: July 14, 2009


-----------------------
*The Registrant is a holding company that does substantially all of its business
through two indirect wholly-owned  subsidiaries (and their subsidiaries).  Those
indirect  wholly-owned  subsidiaries  are AMREP Southwest Inc. ("ASW") and Kable
Media Services, Inc. ("Kable"). James Wall is the principal executive officer of
ASW,  and  Michael P. Duloc is the  principal  executive  officer of Kable.  The
registrant has no chief executive officer.  Its executive officers include James
Wall,  Senior  Vice  President  and Peter M.  Pizza,  Vice  President  and Chief
Financial Officer,  and Michael P. Duloc, who may be deemed an executive officer
by reason of his position with Kable.