Case Name: Alvin Sheldon KANOFSKY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-24
Citations: 693 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 17-1246
Parties: Alvin Sheldon KANOFSKY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
Alvin Sheldon KANOFSKY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-1246
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2017
Decided: July 24, 2017
Alvin Sheldon Kanofsky, Appellant Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Senior Attorney, Paul Andrew Alulis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Olivia H. Rembach, Amy Dyar Seals, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; William J. Wilkins, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Sheldon Kanofsky appeals the tax court's order upholding the Commissioner's notices of deficiency with respect to his 2008, 2009, and 2010 income tax liability and assessing penalties. The Commissioner has moved to dismiss the appeal for improper venue. We have reviewed the record and conclude that venue does not lie in this Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1) (2012). Additionally, we find that transfer of venue to the Third Circuit is not in the interest of justice. See Sorda v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 122-23 (4th Cir. 2011) (declining to transfer case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 [ (2012) ] due, in part, to "weakness of [the appellant's] argument on the merits"). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED