US v. Gerard O'Shea

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cv-04075 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999627829]. Mailed to: appellants, Michael Martineau, and Christopher W. Sanders. [15-1245]

Appeal: 15-1245

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARD O’SHEA; KATHNELL O’SHEA; ALL ABOUT BEAUTY TRUST, Astrid
N. Dilullio, Trustee (Astrid N. Dilullio dismissed from this
matter pursuant to the Court’s Order entered 05/30/2013)
Gerard O’Shea and Kathnell O’Shea Trustees,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
KIM J. O’SHEA; GENESIS TRUST, Gerard O’Shea and Kathnell
O’Shea, Trustees; GAND K TRUST, Gerard O’Shea, Kathnell
O’Shea, and Kim J. O’Shea, Trustees,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District
Judge. (5:12-cv-04075)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-1245

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Gerard O’Shea, Kathnell O’Shea, Appellants Pro Se.
Marion
Elizabeth Erickson, Robert William Metzler, Tax Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1245

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gerard and Kathnell O’Shea and All About Beauty Trust appeal
from

the

district

court’s

orders

reducing

to

judgment

the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s tax assessments against each of
them for unpaid tax liabilities for the 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax
years.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

United States v. O’Shea, No. 5:12-cv-04075 (S.D.W. Va.

Feb. 20, 24, & 27, 2015).

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3