Filed: Sep. 20, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1703 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus SCOTT HINES, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-mc-00120-NCT) Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 20, 2007 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1703 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus SCOTT HINES, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-mc-00120-NCT) Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 20, 2007 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1703 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus SCOTT HINES, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-mc-00120-NCT) Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 20, 2007 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oscar Stilley, Fort Smith, Arizona, for Appellant. Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Haungs, Mary R. Pelletier, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Scott Hines appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting the petition to enforce a summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hines, No. 1:05-mc-00120-NCT (M.D.N.C. May 17, 2006). 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 -