Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02058/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. MacAlpine
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES E. MACALPINE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00053-MR-DLH)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

James E. MacAlpine, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Magee Tompkins, 

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Patrick J. 

Urda, Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2058 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James E. MacAlpine appeals from the district court’s 

orders: (1) granting the Government’s motion to reduce to 

judgment assessments for taxes, penalties, and interest with 

respect to MacAlpine’s 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 

2006 federal income tax liability, and (2) denying his motion to 

vacate. 

Because MacAlpine filed his motion to vacate more than 28 

days after entry of judgment, the appeal is untimely as to the 

April 8, 2014, order granting summary judgment in favor of the 

Government. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal from that order for lack of jurisdiction. 

MacAlpine’s motion to vacate the district court’s order failed 

to establish any grounds for such relief. Therefore, we affirm 

the denial of his motion to vacate on the reasoning of the 

district court. United States v. MacAlpine, No. 1:13-cv-00053-

MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2014). 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 14-2058 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 2