USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-1432

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

PAUL NORDBERG,

Defendants, Appellants.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Paul Nordberg on brief pro se.

_____________
Loretta
C. Argrett,
_____________________

Assistant

Attorney

General,

William
________

Estabrook, Thomas V.M. Linguanti, Tax Division, Department of Justi

_________ _____________________

and Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

_______________

____________________

October 10, 1996

____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

We

have

reviewed de novo
________

the district

court's

grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-

appellee.

and

We conclude

that that determination

see no need to write separately.

essentially for

the reasons

memorandum and order, dated

was correct

We, therefore, affirm,

______

stated in the

district court's

April 8, 1996.

We add

only the

order, the

district

following comments.

At page

court made

of its

slip of

judgment standard, the

memorandum and

the

pen.

court stated

In reciting

that it

the

summary

must view

the

entire record in the light most favorable to the "plaintiffs"

and indulge

all reasonable

this case, the

party.

inferences in

government was the

Obviously, the

their favor.

In

plaintiff and the

moving

district court meant to refer

to the

"defendants",

next

as the non-moving party.

paragraph and

the remainder

district court understood the

and

of the

opinion

that the

relative burdens of the moving

non-moving parties, understood which party carried which

burden

in

this

Contrary to the

does not

case,

exist, the

In addition,

that, because

and applied

the

correct

appellants' attempt to create an

rule for inferences."

tax

It is clear from the

district court

issue that

"reverse[] the

Brief at p. 35.

we note

that the government

it has already applied

overpayments

did not

standard.

for the

tax years

-2-

has conceded

the appellants' income

1991

and 1992

to the

balance

it

claimed that

1987, the amount of

appellants owed

for the

tax year

these overpayments was properly credited

to the amount owed by the taxpayers.

Appellants' request

alternate

lieu

should

request that

for oral

we accept

of oral argument is denied.

______

have been

included

argument is denied.
______

supplemental

The

material in

The supplemental material

within the

permitted number

of

pages in the

this

reply brief.

supplemental

material

In any

and

event, we have

it

does

not

decision.

The "emergency motion" is denied as moot.

______________

Affirmed.
________

Loc. R. 27.1.

reviewed

change

our

-3-