U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2006

United States v. Wallace

United States v. Wallace
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 15, 2006

United States v. Wallace

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus

CAROL A. WALLACE, Administrator, Old Mill Trust, Respondent - Appellant.

No. 05-2209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus

CAROL A. WALLACE, Respondent - Appellant.

No. 05-2210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus

CAROL A. WALLACE, Treasurer/Accountant, The Tymisau Foundation, Respondent - Appellant.

No. 05-2211

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus

CAROL A. WALLACE, Administrator for the Spring Wood Trust, Respondent - Appellant.

No. 05-2212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus

CAROL A. WALLACE, Administrator for The Redeemer Trust, Respondent - Appellant.

- 2 - Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-1867-WDQ; CA-05-1868-WDQ; CA-05-1869-WDQ; CA-05-1870-WDQ; CA-05-1871-WDQ)

Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 15, 2006

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carol A. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Ray White, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 3 - PER CURIAM: Carol A. Wallace appeals from five district court orders denying her motions to quash and granting the Government’s motions to enforce the Internal Revenue Service summonses. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Wallace, Nos. CA-05-1867-WDQ; CA-05-1868-WDQ; CA-05-1869- WDQ; CA-05-1870-WDQ; CA-05-1871-WDQ (Sept. 21, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED

- 4 -

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.