Gordon v. United States ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    JANET GORDON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                                      No. 94-2324
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge.
    (CA-90-3003-N)
    Submitted: April 15, 1996
    Decided: April 25, 1996
    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Bradley A. Thomas, GOURDINE & THOMAS, Washington, D.C.;
    Stephen O. Russell, Oxon Hill, Maryland, for Appellant. Loretta C.
    Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Gary R. Allen, Charles E. Brook-
    hart, David A. Shuster, Tax Division, Lynne Ann Battaglia, United
    States Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Janet Gordon appeals from the district court's order entering judg-
    ment in favor of the United States on her wrongful levy action filed
    pursuant to 
    26 U.S.C. § 7426
    (c) (1988). Gordon claims that the dis-
    trict court erred in admitting certain documents as evidence; in allow-
    ing the government to admit certain hearsay testimony; and that the
    district court's finding was unsupported by the evidence. We affirm.
    On August 21, 1987, Gordon posted bail in the amount of $75,000
    on behalf of her niece, Laverne Box, who had been arrested in Mary-
    land on state drug charges and was subsequently convicted. The day
    before Box was sentenced, local and state officials instituted forfei-
    ture proceedings as to the bail money, alleging that it was related to
    illegal drug transactions involving Box's codefendant. Gordon even-
    tually settled the forfeiture proceeding, agreeing to allow Prince
    George's County to retain $25,000 and to keep the remaining
    $50,000.
    Before the $50,000 was returned to Gordon, however, the Internal
    Revenue Service served a notice of levy upon the Prince George's
    County Director of Finance alleging that Gordon was only a nominee
    of the taxpayer. The funds were seized in partial satisfaction of a
    jeopardy assessment in the amount of $4,000,000 made against the
    taxpayer. Gordon then filed this wrongful levy action claiming that
    the $50,000 did not belong to the taxpayer. The district court, after a
    one-day trial, concluded that Gordon was, in fact, the nominee of the
    taxpayer and entered judgment in favor of the Government. Gordon
    appeals.
    In a wrongful levy action brought under § 7426, the taxpayer has
    the initial burden of proving that she has an interest in the property.
    Morris v. United States, 
    813 F.2d 343
    , 345 (11th Cir. 1987). The
    Government concedes that Gordon met this initial burden.
    2
    Once the plaintiff's initial burden is met, however, the burden
    shifts to the government to prove, by "substantial evidence," a nexus
    between the taxpayer and the property seized. Morris, 
    813 F.2d at 345
    ; Valley Fin., Inc. v. United States, 
    629 F.2d 162
    , 171 n.19 (D.C.
    Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 
    451 U.S. 1018
     (1981). Gordon claimed that
    she saved this money over the years by hoarding it in various places
    in her apartment. The Government offered evidence to show that Gor-
    don's income was such that she would have been unable to accumu-
    late this amount of money and also that the taxpayer used multiple
    nominees to hide assets. The district court specifically discredited
    Gordon's testimony and credited the testimony of the government
    witnesses. That finding is not subject to review. United States v.
    Saunders, 
    886 F.2d 56
    , 60 (4th Cir. 1989) (credibility of witnesses is
    within sole province of fact-finder and not susceptible to review on
    appeal).
    Gordon claims that the district court erred in admitting three docu-
    ments (certain bank records and an Internal Revenue Service currency
    transaction report) because they were not authenticated. The authenti-
    cation requirement, set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), is met if there
    exists "sufficient evidence to support a finding that the matter in ques-
    tion is what its proponent claims." We find that the records here were
    properly authenticated under Rule 901(a). Gordon further claims that
    the district court erred in admitting certain hearsay testimony. Our
    review of the record and the transcript of the hearing reveals that no
    part of the testimony at issue which constituted hearsay was admitted.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dis-
    pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3