Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Abdo v. IRS, 03-1143 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1143 Visitors: 25
Filed: May 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1143 ALFRED ABDO, JR., d/b/a American Tax Planning Company, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-98-1) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1143 ALFRED ABDO, JR., d/b/a American Tax Planning Company, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-98-1) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Abdo, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Raleigh Ellisen, Teresa Thomas Milton, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Alfred Abdo, Jr., appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) permanently enjoining him from—among other things—giving tax advice, preparing income tax returns for others, and promoting abusive tax schemes; and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Abdo v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. CA-01-98-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 8 & Nov. 27, 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