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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7117

JOSEPH H. GIBBS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (2:21-cv-03206-JD)

Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 2, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Hugo Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7117 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph H. Gibbs, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, construing Gibbs’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and dismissing the petition as successive and 

unauthorized. Gibbs also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying reconsideration. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gibbs has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7117 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
929.52
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Hike Cholla Cactus Garden

Joshua Tree National Park
Decision Document

Subject: Including Interest for Folsom Safety of Dams (SOD) in Repayment Status

Date: July 28, 2016

Issue: In a letter dated January 18, 2008, Central Valley Project (CVP) water contractors were 

notified that the total final cost of the Folsom SOD project will begin to be reflected in the 

construction component of the CVP water rates in the year after the Folsom SOD project is 

considered substantially complete. The Folsom SOD project has many phases. Currently, as 

each phase of the project is completed, the costs are transferred to Plant in Service while 

awaiting for the other phases of the project to be completed; however, these costs are not 

included in repayment status, as stated in the January 18, 2008 letter from the Regional Director. 

When construction is in progress, interest during construction costs (IDC) are incurred. At the 

time that each phase of construction is completed, the project construction costs plus IDC are 

transferred to plant in service. Once costs are in plant in service, interest on investment (IOI) is 

then calculated, thereby compounding the interest. If the interest portion of the completed 

phases of the Folsom SOD project is not put into repayment status when transferred to plant in 

service, IOI costs continue to grow, and contractors do not have the ability to make payments 

toward the accumulating interest. 

On June 16, 2016, Reclamation Finance sent a letter to all CVP M&I water contractors to make 

them aware of the compounding interest on their allocation of costs for Folsom SOD that is not 

currently in repayment status. The purpose of the letter was to get contractor feedback regarding 

whether or not they preferred to include the IOI portion of their cost for Folsom SOD in 

repayment status as it accumulates each year. This will allow M&I contractors to pay down their 

IOI charges on an annual basis. 

Decision: The response to the June 16, 2016 letter from both individual M&I water contractors 

and those contractors that attended recent bi-monthly Financial Affairs Committee meetings was 

to include Folsom SOD IOI charges in repayment status on an annual basis. Therefore, 

beginning with the 2017 water rates, Folsom SOD IOI charges will be included in repayment 

status for M&I contractors.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section




National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Underground Railroad





Contact Us
  Journey to Freedom  Beginning in the 17th century and continuing through the mid-19th century in the United States, enslaved African Americans resisted bondage to gain their freedom through acts of self-emancipation. The individuals who sought this freedom from enslavement, known as freedom seekers, and those who assisted along the way, united together to become what is known as the Underground Railroad. The National Park Service and members of the Network to Freedom tell these stories of escape to demonstrate the significance of the Underground Railroad in the eradication of slavery as a cornerstone of the national civil rights movement.
  African American soldiers in the Revolutionary War marching down a dusty road with rifles Claiming Freedom Learn about enslaved individuals seeking freedom in the Revolutionary Era ("Brave Men as Ever Fought" painting by Don Troiani)
 Photograph of Black man sitting at three quarter profile in a suit.People Learn more about freedom seeker Robert Smalls and others . Image Credit Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division.
 Photograph of person kayaking in the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge in Maryland.Community Storytelling The Harriet Tubman Byway audio guide connects visitors with Tubman's story across Maryland. Learn about more stories.
 Questioning Conversation title screenQuestioning Conversation Explore the Questioning Conversation video series
 Color Screenshot of mapExplore Network Members Learn more about Network to Freedom Members using our Interactive Map!
 NTF Logo with yellow star and face looking NorthJoin the Network to Freedom Explore our new electronic application and instructions to apply
 Last updated: March 21, 2024
 History of the Underground Railroad
 Network to Freedom
 Underground Railroad 101
 Education
 Tools Calendar
Site Index
Contact Us


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
#### § 4.357 Guardians for minors and incompetents.

Persons less than 18 years of age and other legal incompetents who are parties in interest may be represented at all hearings by legally appointed guardians or by guardians *ad litem* appointed by the administrative judge.
§ 423.30 Weapons, firearms, explosives, and fireworks. ( a ) You may possess firearms, ammunition, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other projectile firing devices on Reclamation lands and waterbodies, provided the firearm, ammunition, or other projectile firing device is stowed, transported, and/or carried in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local law, with the following exceptions: ( 1 ) You must not have a weapon in your possession when at or in a Reclamation facility.
( 2 ) You must comply with any prohibitions or regulations applicable to weapons in a special use area established by an authorized official under subpart E of this part 423.
( b ) You must not discharge or shoot a weapon unless you are: ( 1 ) Using a firearm or other projectile firing device lawfully for hunting or fishing as allowed under § 423.32, or at an authorized shooting or archery range; and
( 2 ) In compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local law.
( c ) You must not use or possess explosives, or fireworks or pyrotechnics of any type, except as allowed by a permit issued pursuant to subpart D of this part 423, or in special use areas so designated by an authorized official under subpart E of this part 423.
( d ) In recreation facilities or areas operated through contracts or other agreements by a managing recreation partner agency from another Federal, State, local, or Tribal governmental entity, such as a State park, the laws, ordinances, and regulations of those partner agencies pertaining to possession and use of firearms shall be enforced by those partner agencies. However, Reclamation retains the authority to take necessary actions to safeguard the security and safety of the public and such Reclamation facilities, lands, and waterbodies.
[73 FR 75349, Dec. 11, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 80991, Nov. 21, 2023]
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Take a Short Hike to Buena Vista Peak

Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks
#### Myrtle Hunter et al., Respondents, v. John J. Theis, Appellant.

*868Hagarty, Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to §906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned President and chief executive officer of First Republic Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company),
hereby certifies on the date hereof pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Form 10-K),
filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 23, 2006



/s/    JAMES J. BAUMBERGERName:

James J. BaumbergerTitle:

President and chief executive officer
#### In the Matter of Katherine G. Burri, Individually and as President of the Civil Service Forum, Council 189, et al. v. City of New York et al.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn, and Callahan, JJ.
#### Philip M. Bainbridge, Appellant, v. William M. Hoes, Public Administrator, etc., Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of William Allaire Shortt, referee. It may be that the plaintiff has some remedy against the administrator upon contract. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.
#### Abraham Sheingold, Appellant, v. Theresa Behrens, Respondent.

The plaintiff was a social visitor and not a licensee. *(Roth*v. *Prudential Life Ins. Co. of America,*266 App. Div. 872; *Comeau*V. *Comeau,*285 Mass. 578; Restatement, Torts, §§ 331, 332.) Order denying plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve a second amended complaint unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. There was no abuse of discretion in the refusal to permit plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint alleging matters purely of evidence. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See *post,*pp. 686, 710, 770.]
458 P.2d 859

#### Mike ARCHULETA, Petitioner, v. Honorable E. Forrest SANDERS, Respondent.

No. 8917.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Sept. 19, 1969.

NOBLE, Chief Justice and MOISE, COMPTON and WATSON, Justices concurring. TACKETT, Justice, being absent and not participating;

Ordered that petition for writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.
#### Paramount Pictures, Inc., v. Harry Brandt et al.

Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 652.]
### §306. Expenditures for encouragement of industry and self-support; repayment

On and after May 9, 1938, the expenditures for the purpose of encouraging industry and self-support among the Indians and to aid them in the culture of fruits, grains, and other crops shall be under conditions to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior for repayment to the United States on or before the expiration of five years, except in the case of loans on irrigable lands for permanent improvement of said lands, in which the period for repayment may run for not exceeding twenty years, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.

(May 9, 1938, ch. 187, §1, 52 Stat. 302.)
### **Subchapter B—Deficiency Procedures in the Case of Income, Estate, Gift, and Certain Excise Taxes**

Sec.
6211.
Definition of a deficiency.
6212.
Notice of deficiency.
6213.
Restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition to Tax Court.
6214.
Determinations by Tax Court.
6215.
Assessment of deficiency found by Tax Court.
6216.
Cross references.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1969**—Pub. L. 91–172, title I, §101(j)(62), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 532, inserted reference to certain excise taxes in subchapter heading.
#### William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York, Appellant, v. C. Philip Dittman and Others, Respondents.

Motion granted, without costs. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0 317.00.005. 522 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR20 11 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 01/0 4 /13 Time: 4:00 am

pm

Company Name: Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Bartell

Contact Name: D ana Waits Contact Phone Number: ( 615 ) 532

- 1171

General Subject: 2011 DMR Concentration Values and Units



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Pat Cromer

- james.p.cromer@tn.gov

- (615) 532

- 0680

TNDEC operates an online database of all of all permits in the state. You can download the permits from the

database. ( http://environment

- online.state.tn.us:7654/pls/enf_reports/f?p=9034:34001:2294367758653408 )

Division of Water Pollutio n Control

– 615

- 532

- 0625

Pat Cromer: 615

- 532

- 0680

http://www.tn.gov/environment/wpc/

On January 4 th , 2013 at 4pm I called TN DEC and was transferred to D ana Waits (615

- 532

- 1171). I left a

message for her. On January 7 th Ms. Waits returned my call and I ga ve her the information on the facility and

concentrations we are looking at. She said she would gather the DMRs and get back to me.

Ms. Waits returned my call at 11:30am and stated that the Oct 2011 PCB concentration for outfall N06 should

be below detect ion limit instead of 1.81 mg/L. She had contacted the facility and confirmed the error. The

facility is re

- submitting their DMR. Ms. Waits also stated that the April 2011 Cyanide concentration should be

0.01 mg/L instead of 0.1 mg/L for outfall SW1. She wa s checking on the iron data and will get back to me.

Ms. Waits returned my call on January 8 th , 2013 and stated that the flow for Outfall SW1, April 2011 should be

1.23 MGD and 0.726 MGD for October 2011. She stated that the Cyanide concentration for October 2011 for

Outfall SW1 was below detection limit. This data was all correct in our database. Ms. Waits also stated that the

facility is only required to sample Outfall N04 for Iron but sampled Outfalls N01

- N10 for Iron and reported

values on a yearly basis. She stated that Outfalls N01

- N10 and 01E, 01N and 01S all contain a certain

percentage of s tormwater and therefore the flow can vary substantially based on the amount of precipitation that

occurred. She confirmed that our data for Iron is correct and told me to call back with any further questions.
### §6301. Collection authority

The Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 775; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Approval Process for Liens, Levies, and Seizures

Pub. L. 105–206, title III, §3421, July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 758, provided that:

"(a) In General.—The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall develop and implement procedures under which—

"(1) a determination by an employee to file a notice of lien or levy with respect to, or to levy or seize, any property or right to property would, where appropriate, be required to be reviewed by a supervisor of the employee before the action was taken; and

"(2) appropriate disciplinary action would be taken against the employee or supervisor where the procedures under paragraph (1) were not followed.

"(b) Review Process.—The review process under subsection (a)(1) may include a certification that the employee has—

"(1) reviewed the taxpayer's information;

"(2) verified that a balance is due; and

"(3) affirmed that the action proposed to be taken is appropriate given the taxpayer's circumstances, considering the amount due and the value of the property or right to property.

"(c) Effective Dates.—

"(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [July 22, 1998].

"(2) Automated collection system actions.—In the case of any action under an automated collection system, this section shall apply to actions initiated after December 31, 2000."
#### Laura Glover, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. National Bank of Commerce in New York, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. (See *Glover*v. *Nat. Bank of*Commerce, 156 App. Div. 247.) Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
# Table 1.1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7195

ANTHONY R. TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-257-6-20AK) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony R. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony R. Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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
### §2512. Valuation of gifts

(a) If the gift is made in property, the value thereof at the date of the gift shall be considered the amount of the gift.

(b) Where property is transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth, then the amount by which the value of the property exceeded the value of the consideration shall be deemed a gift, and shall be included in computing the amount of gifts made during the calendar year.

#### (c) Cross reference

**For individual's right to be furnished on request a statement regarding any valuation made by the Secretary of a gift by that individual, see section 7517.**

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 406; Pub. L. 91–614, title I, §102(b)(1), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1840; Pub. L. 94–455, title XX, §2008(a)(2)(B), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1891; Pub. L. 97–34, title IV, §442(b)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 322.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1981—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–34 substituted "calendar year" for "calendar quarters".

1976—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–455 added subsec. (c).

1970—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 91–614 substituted "calendar quarter" for "calendar year".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–34 applicable with respect to gifts made after Dec. 31, 1981, see section 442(e) of Pub. L. 97–34, set out as a note under section 2501 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–614 applicable with respect to gifts made after Dec. 31, 1970, see section 102(e) of Pub. L. 91–614, set out as a note under section 2501 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6588

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BASEM NAJJAR, a/k/a Bassim Najjar, a/k/a Bassem Najjar, a/k/a Basim Najjar, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:98-cr-00505-DKC; 8:03-cv-03565-DKC) Submitted: October 3, 2007 Decided: November 6, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Basem Najjar, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Basem Najjar seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Najjar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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