Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

SMELLEY v. U.S., 3 F.3d 389 (11th Cir. 1993)

LAWRENCE D. SMELLEY; JUNE MORRISON SMELLEY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. UNITEDSTATES OF Am. (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE), DEFENDANT-APPELLEE., 3 F.3d 389 (11th Cir. 1993)

Type: Opinion
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1993-09-30
Topic: general

SMELLEY v. U.S., 3 F.3d 389 (11th Cir. 1993) LAWRENCE D. SMELLEY; JUNE MORRISON SMELLEY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE), DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. No. 92-7036.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SMELLEY v. U.S., 3 F.3d 389 (11th Cir. 1993). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SMELLEY v. U.S.,3 F.3d 389(11th Cir. 1993)

LAWRENCE D. SMELLEY; JUNE MORRISON SMELLEY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE), DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

No. 92-7036.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

September 30, 1993.

Lindsey M. Davis, Florence, AL, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jack W. Selden, George C. Batcheler, Birmingham, AL, Gary Allen, Edward T. Perelmuter, Michael L. Paup, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Ann B. Durney, Jonathan A. Wasserman, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (No. CV 92-HM-486-NW), E.B. Halton, Jr., Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON, and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated in the districtPage 390court's memorandum opinion which is published at806 F. Supp. 932(N.D.Ala. 1992).

[2] AFFIRMED.