Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1263 GWENDOLYN L. KESTIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 018254-17L) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gwendolyn L. Kestin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joel Branman, Thomas J. Clark, Tax Division, UN
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1263 GWENDOLYN L. KESTIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 018254-17L) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gwendolyn L. Kestin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joel Branman, Thomas J. Clark, Tax Division, UNI..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1263
GWENDOLYN L. KESTIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 018254-17L)
Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gwendolyn L. Kestin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joel Branman, Thomas J. Clark, Tax
Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gwendolyn L. Kestin seeks to appeal the tax court’s orders denying her husband’s
motion to appear as her “next friend” and denying her motion for reconsideration of that
order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 11 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1)
(2012), 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337
U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Kestin seeks to appeal are neither final nor
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2