Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Christian v. United States, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    George and Marion Christian filed a tax refund suit and related constitutional claims against the United States and IRS, which were denied by the district court. They appealed the denials to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible errors. The Fourth Circuit also denied various motions filed by both the Christians and the United States.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-11-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1297

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    George and Marion Christian filed a tax refund suit and related constitutional claims against the United States and IRS, which were denied by the district court. They appealed the denials to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible errors. The Fourth Circuit also denied various motions filed by both the Christians and the United States.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Christian v. United States, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George and Marion Christian filed a tax refund suit and related constitutional claims against the United States and IRS, which were denied by the district court. They appealed the denials to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible errors. The Fourth Circuit also denied various motions filed by both the Christians and the United States.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-1297

    GEORGE CHRISTIAN, JR; MARION E. CHRISTIAN,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o Internal Revenue Service,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 08-1592

    GEORGE CHRISTIAN, JR.; MARION E. CHRISTIAN,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o Internal Revenue Service,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
    (1:06-cv-01437-MJG)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 2008

    Decided:

    November 6, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    George Christian, Jr., Marion E. Christian, Appellants Pro Se.


    Jonathan Samuel Cohen, Christine Durney Mason, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, George Christian, Jr., and
    Marion E. Christian seek to appeal the district courts orders
    denying relief on their tax refund suit and related constitutional
    claims, as well as its post-judgment orders denying their motions
    for reconsideration and recusal of the district court judge.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Christian v. United States, No. 1:06-cv-01437-MJG (D. Md.

    Feb. 1, 2008; filed Jan. 9, 2008 and entered Jan. 11, 2008; March
    12, 2008).

    In light of this disposition, we deny as moot the

    Appellees motions to strike and for extension of time to file a


    second brief.

    We also deny the Appellants motions to strike the

    Appellees brief, for judicial notice, to compel a stipulation of


    facts, for summary judgment, and to suspend Fed. R. App. P. 2.

    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

    You might also like