James W. Fennell, Marjorie Fennell, Charles R. Byrne Andwilliam G. Kemp As Co-personal Representatives of the Estateof Francis X. Byrne, Deceased, Carolyn R. Byrne, Charles R.byrne and Karen S. Byrne, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 43 F.3d 1482 (10th Cir. 1994)

D. Colo., D.C. No. 92-F-1646.

Ellis J. Sobol, Denver, CO, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Frank P. Cihlar, Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice (Loretta C. Argrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard Farber, Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, with him on the brief), Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee.

D. Colo., 830 F. Supp. 1368.

AFFIRMED.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY, Circuit Judge, and BELOT,^*  District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^** 

BELOT, District Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo applying the same legal standard as did the district court. Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 635 (1992). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When applying that standard, " [w]e view the evidence and draw any inferences in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, but that party must identify sufficient evidence which would require submission of the case to a jury." Thomas, 968 F.2d at 1024.

After careful consideration of the arguments on appeal and the record below, we are not persuaded the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. We affirm the district court for substantially the same reasons set forth in its June 30, 1993 order.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.