United States v. Evelyn B. Hamilton, as Business Manager for Rbm Leasing Co., in the Matter of John Does, Etc.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Evelyn B. HAMILTON, as Business Manager for RBM Leasing Co., Defendant-Appellant. in the Matter of John DOES, Etc., Defendants
Opinion
BY THE COURT:
Appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal of the district court’s April 2, 1992, order is denied. The court’s order enforces the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) sum *323 mons requiring the appellant to appear, to testify, and to produce certain records, papers, and other data in her possession relevant to the determination of the tax liabilities of certain John Doe taxpayers. Appellant appeals that order contesting the court’s determination that she is barred from challenging the IRS’ compliance with the statutory provisions authorizing issuance of the summons, under 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (f)(2) (1988), at the enforcement hearing to show cause for her noncompliance with the summons. Appellant now requests that we stay the district court’s April 2, 1992, order pending the outcome of her appeal.
Our standard of review in cases of this sort is well-settled. The grant of a motion to stay the trial court’s mandate is an exceptional response granted only on a showing of “a probable likelihood of success on the merits on appeal,” or upon a lesser showing of a “ ‘substantial case on the merits’ when ‘the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.’ ”
Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F.2d 1450, 1453 (11th Cir.1986) (quoting Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983)). Appellant neither has demonstrated a probable likelihood of success on the merits on appeal, see United States v. John Mutschler & Assoc., Inc., 734 F.2d 363 (8th Cir.1984), United States v. Samuels, Kramer and Co., 712 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.1983), Agricultural Asset Management Co., Inc. v. United States, 688 F.2d 144 (2d Cir.1982);
but see United States v. Brigham Young University, 679 F.2d 1345 (10th Cir.1982), nor that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.
Accordingly, appellant’s motion for stay of the district court’s April 2, 1992, order is DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(affirming the denial of a motion to stay where the movant “neither has demonstrated a probable likelihood of success on the merits on appeal, nor that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay”)
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.