Ervin J. Horton, Appellant, v. U.S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,commissioner Fred Goldberg, 946 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 946 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1991) June 12, 1991

Before WALD, HARRY T. EDWARDS and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its order filed September 27, 1990. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the relief sought or that appellees have a duty to act, see Council of and For the Blind of Delaware County Valley, Inc. v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc), and, consequently, has failed to establish that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief requested. See Cartier v. Secretary of State, 506 F.2d 191, 199 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 947 (1975).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.