|
Georgia Lawyer Search - Listings for Slade H Geoffrey SR
Name: Slade H Geoffrey SR
Address: 225 N Jeff Davis Dr Fayetteville, GA 30214
Phone Number: 770-719-9106
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USCA10 Opinion 04-2320.wpd FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 1, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT JICARILLA APACHE NATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 04-2320 RIO ARRIBA COUNTY; MOISES MORALES; ALFREDO MONTOYA, in his individual capacity; RAY TAFOYA, in his individual capacity; DAVID SALAZAR, in his individual capacity; LORENZO VALDEZ, Rio Arriba County Manager; ARTHUR R. RODARTE, Rio Arriba County Assessor; AGAPITO CANDELARIA, Rio Arriba County Chief Appraiser; and unknown John and Jane Does; each such natural persons in both his and her official and individual capacities; ANDREW CHAVEZ, Rio Arriba County Commissioner; ELIAS CORIZ, Defendants-Appellees. 1000 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO (D.C. No. CIV-02-1470 JB/RLP) Daniel I.S.J. Rey-Bear (Jenny J. Dumas, Nordhaus, Haltom, Taylor, Taradash & Bladh, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the briefs), Nordhaus, Haltom, Taylor, Taradash & Bladh, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Harriet J. Hickman (R. Galen Reimer, Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, with her on the briefs), Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendants-Appellees. Before EBEL, HENRY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge. Tax assessment is not an exact science, and the outcomes are rarely popular. Using small budgets and limited information, local assessors must make difficult judgments based on uncertain valuations-with the knowledge that higher tax bills are more likely to produce complaints of unfair treatment than thank you cards. Despite these limitations on exactingly precise tax assessment, the Jicarilla Apache Nation ("Nation") believes that the Rio Arriba County Assessor ("Assessor") violated the Equal Protection Clause in 2000 by changing the tax classification on thousands of acres of ...
USCA10 Opinion 05-9000.wpd FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 9, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT RONALD F. VAN SCOTEN; CYNTHIA G. VAN SCOTEN, Petitioners - Appellants, No. 05-9000 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT (T.C. No. 24946-96) Terri A. Merriam (and Wendy S. Pearson, Pearson & Merriam, P.C, with her on the briefs), Seattle, Washington, for Petitioners - Appellants. Anthony T. Sheehan (and Bruce R. Ellisen, Tax Division, Department of Justice, and Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Respondent - Appellee. Before KELLY, HENRY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. KELLY, Circuit Judge. Taxpayer-Appellants Ronald and Cynthia Van Scoten (collectively, the "Van Scotens") appeal from the Tax Court's decision in Van Scoten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-275, 2004 WL 2785918 (2004) ("T.C. Memo"), holding them liable for an accuracy-related penalty of $2,872 imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") as a result of their negligence in claiming losses from a cattle partnership they were invested in during the 1991 tax year. Our jurisdiction arises under 26 U.S.C. 7482(a)(1), and we affirm. Background The accuracy-related penalty at issue in this case arises from adjustments of partnership items on the Van Scotens' 1991 Federal income tax return. The adjustments are the result of the Van Scotens' investment in a partnership organized and promoted by Walter J. Hoyt III ("Mr. Hoyt"). I. Mr. Hoyt and the Hoyt Organization Mr. Hoyt's father was a nationally recognized breeder of shorthorn cattle, one of the three major breeds of cattle in the United States. In order to expand his business and attract investors, Mr. Hoyt's father, in the late 1960s, began organizing and promoting cattle breeding partnerships. Before and after his father's deat...
USA v MCCLATCHY IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES H. MCCLATCHY, JR., Defendants-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville April 19, 2001 Before POLITZ, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Charles H. McClatchy, Jr. ("McClatchy") appeals his conviction and sentence for conversion of pledged crops, money laundering, engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property greater than $10,000 in value, and crop insurance fraud. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND McClatchy was convicted in a jury trial on six counts of a seven count indictment involving conversion of pledged crops, money laundering, engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property greater than $10,000 in value, and crop insurance fraud.(1) The facts giving rise to his indictment and conviction are as follows. McClatchy and his nephew, Charles B. McElmurray, III ("McElmurray"), were partners in 1994 in a farming partnership called the "McClatchy Planting Company" ("McClatchy Planting" or "the company"). McClatchy Planting planted, grew, and sold cotton and soybeans near Indianola in Sunflower County, Mississippi. In the spring of 1994, the company applied for financing with the Farmers Home Administration ("FmHA") and received an emergency loan in the amount of $261,170 and a 1994 farm operating loan in the amount of $200,000. At that time, McClatchy and McElmurray executed a security agreement in which they pledged to the FmHA their 1994 crops as collateral for the operating and emergency loans. They also executed Form FmHA 1962-1, Agreement for the Use of Proceeds/Release of Chattel Security ("Form 1962-1"). Form 1962-1 outlined the intended use of all crop proceeds, and it also state...
|
|
|