US v. James MacAlpine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00053-MR-DLH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999589633]. Mailed to: J. MacAlpine. [14-2058]

Appeal: 14-2058

Doc: 32

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES E. MACALPINE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00053-MR-DLH)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
James E. MacAlpine, Appellant Pro Se.
Anne Magee Tompkins,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Patrick J.
Urda, Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2058

Doc: 32

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James
orders:

E.
(1)

judgment

MacAlpine
granting

assessments

appeals

the

for

from

the

Government’s

taxes,

district

motion

penalties,

and

to

court’s

reduce

interest

to

with

respect to MacAlpine’s 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and
2006 federal income tax liability, and (2) denying his motion to
vacate.
Because MacAlpine filed his motion to vacate more than 28
days after entry of judgment, the appeal is untimely as to the
April 8, 2014, order granting summary judgment in favor of the
Government.

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).

Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal from that order for lack of jurisdiction.
MacAlpine’s motion to vacate the district court’s order failed
to establish any grounds for such relief.

Therefore, we affirm

the denial of his motion to vacate on the reasoning of the
district court.
MR-DLH

(W.D.N.C.

United States v. MacAlpine, No. 1:13-cv-00053Sept.

29,

2014).

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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

2