Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Vaughan v. United States, 02-2465 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2465 Visitors: 32
Filed: Mar. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2465 CHARLES VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust; JUDY VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and CJC ENTERPRISE TRUST; ELC TRUST; VAUGHAN TRUST; CJC PERSONNEL TRUST, Plaintiffs, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2465 CHARLES VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust; JUDY VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and CJC ENTERPRISE TRUST; ELC TRUST; VAUGHAN TRUST; CJC PERSONNEL TRUST, Plaintiffs, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-569-5-H(3)) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Vaughan, Judy Vaughan, Appellants Pro Se. Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Vaughan and Judy Vaughan appeal from the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny their petition to quash administrative summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Vaughan v. United States, No. CA-02-569-5- H(3) (E.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 2002). 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. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer