Flores v. United States, 95-50676 (1996)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 95-50676
Visitors: 33
Filed: Apr. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-50676 Summary Calendar MERCEDES FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas April 5, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant in this suit sought damages against the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. No other relief was sought. The district court granted the motio
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-50676 Summary Calendar MERCEDES FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas April 5, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant in this suit sought damages against the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. No other relief was sought. The district court granted the motion..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50676
Summary Calendar
MERCEDES FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
April 5, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellant in this suit sought damages against the
United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. No other relief was sought.
The district court granted the motion to dismiss of defendant-
appellee the United States. The only issue plaintiff raises on
appeal concerns the year 1988 and the return for that year. We
affirm, essentially for the reasons stated in Part B of the
district court’s memorandum opinion and order. We note that this
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
reasoning is equally applicable whether plaintiff’s claim relates
to “the innocent spouse defense” or the claim that plaintiff did
not sign or authorize the 1988 return.
AFFIRMED
2
Source: CourtListener