Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Llewellyn K. Lucei appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1291, and we affirm. Lucei contends that, at sentencing, the district court erred by failing to calculate and articulate the Guidelines range on the record. We conclude that Lucei has not established that any error affected his su

Post-trial decision in a tax refund case; timing of receipt of income; formulaic bonus paid to an American member of an English limited liability partnership in her capacity other than as a member; I.R.C. § 707(a)(2)(A) ORDER 1 LETTOW, Judge. This post-trial opinion address

Pre-trial motions in limine; testimony by witnesses in person at trial rather than by contemporaneous video transmission; RCFC 43(a); RCFC 45(c); removal of attorneys’ eyes only designation for certain documents and information; testimony of a witness who prepared summaries; Fed. R. Evid. 1006 ORDER LETTOW, Judge.

Reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511, 7422; Untimely Refund Claim Filed with IRS; Equitable Theories; Last v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 1 (1996). OPINION AND ORDER RECONSIDERING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WHEELER, Judge. In this tax refund suit, the Court on its own motion is reconsidering its p

Tax case; motion to compel deposition and document production from the government; motion to compel document production from a nonparty; motion by the nonparty for a protective order OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Plaintiffs in this tax case, Jeffrey Herr-mann and Mina Gerowin Herrmann (the “Herrmanns”), seek a refund of income tax and i

Tax; Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 6672; Trust Fund Recovery Penalty; Full Payment Rule; Divisible Taxes. OPINION HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACTS This is a tax refund case involving the trust- fund recovery penalty assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 6672' (2012).

Tax refund; motion for summary judgment; carryback of net operating loss; 26 U.S.C. § 172(b)(1)(H); financial disability; 26 U.S.C. § 6511(h) OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge. This a suit for refund of federal income tax. Plaintiffs Peter B. McAllister and Jennifer C. McAllister (“the McAllisters” or “plaintiffs”) seek a refund of $175,013 fo

Tax Refund Suit; Passive-Activity Losses and Credits; Statute of Limitations Defense; Potential Windfall to the Government. OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WHEELER, Judge. This tax refund case presents an odd circumstance where the Government has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ tax refund suit as time

Tax case; claim for refund of individual income taxes paid pursuant to a notice by the IRS of computational adjustments following an audit of a partnership return; submission by a non-tax matters partner of an administrative adjustment request (“AAR”) on Form 8082; compliance with instructions attendant to Form 8082; effect of I.R.C. §§ 6227(d), 6228(b)(2)(A)(i), 7422(h), Treasury Reg. § 301.6227(d) — 1; jurisdicti

26 U.S.C. § 6672; Failure to Pay Tax; Responsible Person; Willful Conduct; Liability for Penalty TRIAL OPINION FIRESTONE, Judge In this case, plaintiff Douglas Waterhouse (“Mi-. Waterhouse”) seeks a refund of trust fund recovery penalties assessed and partially paid for employment taxes owed to the United States (“the government”

Claim for refund of income taxes; suit precluded by action previously filed in Tax Court respecting the same taxes; I.R.C. § 6512(a) OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. In this tax-refund case, plaintiff, Kenneth Beatty, Jr., seeks a refund of $110,955.64 in income taxes allegedly overpaid for tax years 1999 and 2000. Pending before

710 F.Supp.2d 960 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Pius AILEMEN, Defendant/Petitioner. Nos. C-04-0823 RMW, CR-94-0003. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. December 30, 2008. *965 Pius Ailemen, Sandstone, MN, for Plaintiffs. Mark L. Krotoski, Timothy J. Lucey, Eumi L. C

MICHEL, Circuit Judge. This suit was brought by certain present and former United States Border Patrol agents, alleging that the government wrongly and willfully failed to pay the plaintiffs overtime wages at a time-and-a-half rate as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). The government conceded that the plaintiffs had not been paid for overtime, but contended that all of the various position

350 F.3d 1216 Rowdy D. ADAMS, Ricardo E. Aguirre, Sheri L. Althoff, Luis R. Alvarado, Luis A. Amavizca, Paul H. Ammerman, Paul A. Anderson, Jaime M. Arras, Larry G. Arthurs, Larry H. Arthurs, Martha I. Arvizu, James R. Ash, David J. Astle, John T. Attanasio, Meri L. Axberg, Albert Bailey, Jr., Robert V. Bakowski, Donald L. Barley, John C. Bates, James W. Baumann, Paul A. Beeson, James S. Bendorf, David P. Bennett, Frank J. Beverly, William L. Black

AMENDED ORDER This amended Order supercedes the non-published Order filed February 24, 2004. An active Judge sua sponte requested a vote on whether to rehear this case en banc, and the full court was advised of the sua sponte request. The parties submitted supplemental briefing advising the court of the merits of rehearing the case en banc, and Appellee, in its br

ORDER The parties shall file simultaneous letter briefs, each not to exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, setting forth their respective positions on whether this case should be reheard en banc. Fifty (50) copies shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the filed date of this Order. In addition the points the parties would normally make, the briefs should add

OPINION PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant Raymond Twine (“Twine”), charged with felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), appeals the district court’s pretrial detention order holding him without bail. The district court held that the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, authorizes Twine’s pretrial deten

21-1379 United States v. Barrett In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2023 No. 21-1379 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. DWAYNE BARRETT, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 3, AKA TALL MAN, Defendant-Appel

Case: 18-30694 Document: 00516862523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAVID LEE JUDD, Case No. 1:21-cr-00040 (TNM) Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER David Lee Judd faces felony charges for his alleged involvement in the Capitol riot. He now asks the Court to compel production of internal G