The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-1156•United States of America v. JOHN B. KOTMAIR, JR., d/b/a Save-A-Patriot Fellowship
07-1156Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 26, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN B. KOTMAIR, JR., d/b/a Save-A-Patriot
Fellowship and National Workers Rights
Committee; SAVE-A-PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP, an
unincorporated association,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:05-cv-01297-WMN)
Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Kotmair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se; George E. Harp, Shreveport,
Louisiana, for Appellant SAVE-A-PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP, an
unincorporated association. Richard Farber, Carol Ann Barthel,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
John B. Kotmair, Jr., and Save-A-Patriot Fellowship
appeal from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment
in favor of the United States and issuing a permanent injunction
against them based on their activities in promoting a tax evasion
scheme, and denying their motions for a new trial and for
modification of the injunction. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. United States v. Kotmair, No. 1:05-
cv-01297-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 29, 2006; Feb. 7, 2007). We deny Save-A-
Patriot’s motion to strike portions of the brief filed by the
United States, and we dispense 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.