Keith Robertson v. Commissioner of Intl Revenue
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to remand case [999636647-2], denying Motion to remand case [999633995-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999624960-2] Originating case number: 4947-14 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680429]. Mailed to: Robertson. [15-1623]
Appeal: 15-1623
Doc: 17
Filed: 10/19/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1623
KEITH ROBERTSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
(No. 4947-14)
Submitted:
October 15, 2015
Decided:
October 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith Robertson, Appellant Pro Se.
Gilbert Steven Rothenberg,
Senior Attorney, Richard Caldarone, Caroline D. Ciraolo, Joan
Iris Oppenheimer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax
Division, Washington, D.C.; William J. Wilkins, INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1623
Doc: 17
Filed: 10/19/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Keith Robertson appeals the tax court’s order denying his
request
for
a
continuance
failure to prosecute.
reversible
error.
and
dismissing
his
petition
for
We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly,
although
we
grant
leave
to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the tax court.
Robertson v. Comm’r, Tax Ct. No. 4947-14 (U.S.
Tax Ct. Mar. 10, 2015).
We deny Robertson’s motions to remand
and 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
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?