alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7326

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00064

- GMG

- 2 ; 3:17

- cv 00129

- GMG )

Submitted : April 4 , 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michael Paul Puzey , Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Akira Finucane, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Paul Puzey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the den ial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constit utional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositiv e procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Puzey has not made the requisite showing. Acc ordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Puzey’s motion to dismiss the indictment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
§ 404.1083 Dividends and interest. ( a ) The dividends you receive on shares of stock are excluded in determining your net earnings from self-employment, unless you are a dealer in stocks and securities and receive the dividends in the course of your trade or business.
( b ) The interest you receive on a bond, debenture, note, certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness issued with interest coupons or in registered form by any corporation (including one issued by a government or political subdivision) is excluded in determining your net earnings from self-employment, unless you are a dealer in stocks and securities and receive the interest in the course of your trade or business.
( c ) If you hold stocks or securities for investment or speculation purposes, any dividends and interest you receive that are excludable under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are excluded in determining your net earnings from self-employment, whether or not you are a dealer in stocks and securities.
( d ) A dealer in stocks or securities is a merchant with an established place of business who is regularly engaged in the business of purchasing stocks or securities and reselling them to customers. The dealer, as a merchant, buys stocks or securities and sells them to customers with a view to making a profit. Persons who buy and sell or hold stocks or securities for investment or speculation, regardless of whether the buying or selling constitutes a trade or business, are not dealers in stocks or securities.
[45 FR 20075, Mar. 25, 1980; 45 FR 25060, Apr. 14, 1980]
Grey's Mountain Ecological Restoration Project

Vicinity Map

μ

gs 11/11