U.S. v. Boyce

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiffs-Appellee, v. James M. BOYCE, sued…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 12, 2002

36 F. App'x 612 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

36 Fed.Appx. 612 (9th Cir. 2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiffs-Appellee, v. James M. BOYCE, sued individually and as trustee of the Jacob Family Preservation Trust, aka: The Jacob Family Trust and White Rail Company aka: James M. Boyce; Shelley A. Boyce, sued individually and as trustee of the Jacob Family Preservation Trust, aka, The Jacob Family Trust and White Rail Company, Defendants-Appellants, and The Jacob Family Preservation Trust, aka: Jacob Family Trust; White Rail Company; Northern Plains Services; Rob Tanner, as trustee of the Jacob Family Preservation Trust, aka, Jacob Family Trust and The White Rail Company; Land Title Insurance Company; Franchise Tax Board, State of California, Defendants. No. 01-55410. D.C. No. CV-99-0003 MJL (LSP). United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 12, 2002

Submitted March 12, 2002. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding.

Page 613.

Before KOZINSKI and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BREYER, District Judge. ^**

** Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ^***

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Husband and wife James and Shelley Boyce ("the Boyces") appeal the district court's order reducing to judgment the Boyces' unpaid tax assessments. The Boyces claim the district court erroneously applied res judicata (claim preclusion) to a tax court judgment determining the Boyces' tax liabilities and erroneously determined on summary judgment the amount of tax liability to be reduced to judgment. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court judges in their thorough and well-reasoned written orders.

AFFIRMED.