Case Name: Charles VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust; Judy Vaughan, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and CJC Enterprise Trust; ELC Trust; Vaughan Trust; CJC Personnel Trust, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-25
Citations: 61 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 02-2465
Parties: Charles VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust; Judy Vaughan, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and CJC Enterprise Trust; ELC Trust; Vaughan Trust; CJC Personnel Trust, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 71–71

Head Matter:
Charles VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust; Judy Vaughan, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and CJC Enterprise Trust; ELC Trust; Vaughan Trust; CJC Personnel Trust, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-2465.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2003.
Decided March 25, 2003.
Charles Vaughan, Judy Vaughan, Appellants Pro Se. Laurie Allyn Snyder, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Vaughan and Judy Vaughan appeal from the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny their petition to quash administrative summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Vaughan v. United States, No. CA-02-569-5-H(3) (E.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 2002). 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.