794 Fed.Appx. 339 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-2225, Nabaya v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Docket Nº:19-2225
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 339
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Shapat Ahdawan NABAYA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Attorney:Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joel Branman, Joan Iris Oppenheimer, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 339

794 Fed.Appx. 339 (4th Cir. 2020)

Shapat Ahdawan NABAYA, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-2225

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 7207-19)

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Joel Branman, Joan Iris Oppenheimer, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya appeals the tax court’s order dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Nabaya v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 7207-19 (T.C. Sept. 19, 2019). We also deny Nabaya’s motions to compel a response, to expedite, for summary judgment, and for return of his pension. 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

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP