[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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 S.
Estabrook, Thomas V.M. Linguanti, Tax Division, Department of Justice,
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. We conclude that that determination was correct
and see no need to write separately. We, therefore, affirm,
essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's
memorandum and order, dated April 8, 1996. We add only the
following comments.
At page 6 of its memorandum and order, the district
court made a slip of the pen. In reciting the summary
judgment standard, the court stated that it must view the
entire record in the light most favorable to the "plaintiffs"
and indulge all reasonable inferences in their favor. In
this case, the government was the plaintiff and the moving
party. Obviously, the district court meant to refer to the
"defendants", as the non-moving party. It is clear from the
next paragraph and the remainder of the opinion that the
district court understood the relative burdens of the moving
and non-moving parties, understood which party carried which
burden in this case, and applied the correct standard.
Contrary to the appellants' attempt to create an issue that
does not exist, the district court did not "reverse[] the
rule for inferences." Brief at p. 35.
In addition, we note that the government has conceded
that, because it has already applied the appellants' income
tax overpayments for the tax years 1991 and 1992 to the
-2-
balance it claimed that appellants owed for the tax year
1987, the amount of these overpayments was properly credited
to the amount owed by the taxpayers.
Appellants' request for oral argument is denied. The
alternate request that we accept supplemental material in
lieu of oral argument is denied. The supplemental material
should have been included within the permitted number of
pages in the reply brief. In any event, we have reviewed
this supplemental material and it does not change our
decision.
The "emergency motion" is denied as moot.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-