Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cannon v. NC Dept of Revenue, 99-2500 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2500 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2500 HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-302) Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: February 1, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2500 HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-302) Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: February 1, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood Allen Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Newton George Pritchett, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Haywood Allen Cannon appeals from the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that the tax debt Cannon owed to the North Carolina Department of Revenue was not discharged in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinions, and the bankruptcy court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cannon v. North Carolina Dep’t of Revenue, No. CA-99-302 (E.D.N.C. July 21 & Oct. 5, 1999). We deny Cannon’s motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately 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