Court Opinion

ID: 2964385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:55.693791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.125167
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1432

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    PAUL NORDBERG,

                               Defendants, Appellants.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Paul Nordberg on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Loretta   C.  Argrett,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  William  S.
            _____________________                                  ___________
        Estabrook, Thomas V.M. Linguanti, Tax Division, Department of Justice,
        _________  _____________________
        and Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
            _______________

                                 ____________________

                                   October 10, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   We  have  reviewed de  novo  the district
                 ___________                       ________

            court's  grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-

            appellee.   We conclude  that that determination  was correct

            and  see no need to write separately.  We, therefore, affirm,
                                                                  ______

            essentially for  the reasons  stated in the  district court's

            memorandum and order, dated  April 8, 1996.  We add  only the

            following comments.

                 At page  6  of its  memorandum and  order, the  district

            court made  a  slip of  the  pen.   In reciting  the  summary

            judgment standard, the  court stated  that it  must view  the

            entire record in the light most favorable to the "plaintiffs"

            and indulge  all reasonable  inferences in  their favor.   In

            this case, the  government was the  plaintiff and the  moving

            party.  Obviously, the  district court meant to refer  to the

            "defendants",  as the non-moving party.  It is clear from the

            next  paragraph and  the remainder  of the  opinion  that the

            district court understood the  relative burdens of the moving

            and  non-moving parties, understood which party carried which

            burden  in  this  case,  and applied  the  correct  standard.

            Contrary to the  appellants' attempt to create an  issue that

            does not  exist, the  district court  did not  "reverse[] the

            rule for inferences."  Brief at p. 35.

                 In addition,  we note  that the government  has conceded

            that, because  it has already applied  the appellants' income

            tax  overpayments  for the  tax years  1991  and 1992  to the

                                         -2-

            balance  it  claimed that  appellants owed  for the  tax year

            1987, the amount of  these overpayments was properly credited

            to the amount owed by the taxpayers.

                 Appellants' request  for oral  argument is denied.   The
                                                            ______

            alternate  request that  we accept  supplemental  material in

            lieu  of oral argument is denied.   The supplemental material
                                      ______

            should  have been  included  within the  permitted number  of

            pages in the  reply brief.   In any  event, we have  reviewed

            this  supplemental  material  and  it  does  not  change  our

            decision.

                 The "emergency motion" is denied as moot.
                                           ______________

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________

                                         -3-