Filed: Sep. 16, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-30599 Summary Calendar CARLOS G. BARLETTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-26-T - September 13, 1999 Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos P. Barletta appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims for lack of subjec
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-30599 Summary Calendar CARLOS G. BARLETTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-26-T - September 13, 1999 Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos P. Barletta appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims for lack of subject..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30599
Summary Calendar
CARLOS G. BARLETTA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-26-T
--------------------
September 13, 1999
Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos P. Barletta appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. None of the
statutes cited by Barletta waive sovereign immunity for suit by a
third party to enjoin the IRS from destroying documents relevant
to a state-court suit that does not concern assessment of taxes
or a dispute over property subject to levy. The district court’s
dismissal of his case is thus not error. See Shanbaum v. United
States,
32 F.3d 180, 182 (5th Cir. 1994).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
AFFIRMED.