Filed: Mar. 04, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2277 DAVID A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 97-12718) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. David I. Pincus, Francesca Ugolini Tamami, UNITED STATES DEPA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2277 DAVID A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 97-12718) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. David I. Pincus, Francesca Ugolini Tamami, UNITED STATES DEPAR..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2277 DAVID A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 97-12718) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. David I. Pincus, Francesca Ugolini Tamami, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: David A. Richardson appeals from the tax court’s orders: (1) denying his motion for leave to file a motion to vacate the tax court’s prior order resolving a dispute with respect to Richardson’s federal income tax for the 1989 to 1994 tax years, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of that denial. Our review of the record and the tax court’s orders discloses no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Richardson v. Comm’r, No. 97- 12718 (U.S. Tax Ct. July 6 & July 27, 2004). 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 -