Case Name: Edward WAHLER; Kathy Wahler, Petitioners-Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Asheville Jet; Accent on Design, Incorporated, a/k/a Axiom Company; Yenom Group, Incorporated; Roy E. Carter; America's Wholesale Lender; Life Bank; Bank One, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-01
Citations: 62 F. App'x 526
Docket Number: No. 02-2467
Parties: Edward WAHLER; Kathy Wahler, Petitioners-Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Asheville Jet; Accent on Design, Incorporated, a/k/a Axiom Company; Yenom Group, Incorporated; Roy E. Carter; America’s Wholesale Lender; Life Bank; Bank One, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
Edward WAHLER; Kathy Wahler, Petitioners-Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Asheville Jet; Accent on Design, Incorporated, a/k/a Axiom Company; Yenom Group, Incorporated; Roy E. Carter; America’s Wholesale Lender; Life Bank; Bank One, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-2467.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 1, 2003.
Edward Wahler, Kathy Wahler, Appellants Pro Se. David Anthony Lloyd, Ham-rick, Bowen, Nanney & Dalton, Rutherfordton, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward Wahler and Kathy Wahler appeal from the district court's order imposing sanctions and costs upon finding that their motions to quash third-party summonses and supplemental pleadings were frivolous and filed in bad faith. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wahler v. IRS, No. CA-02-54-1, 2002 WL 32081856 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 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.