United States v. James Alexander Bruner, 91 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. James Alexander Bruner, 91 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a wrongful levy action is the exclusive remedy available to parties (other than the taxpayer) claiming an interest in property upon which the irs has levied.”
44 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A. v. United States (mdd, 2025-02-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A. v. United States
D. Maryland · 2025 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a wrongful levy action is the exclusive remedy available to parties (other than the taxpayer) claiming an interest in property upon which the irs has levied.
discussed Cited "see" Southern States Rack v. Sherwin Williams Co
4th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tritchler v. Consolidation Coal Co., 91 F.3d 134 , 1996 WL 379706, at *2 (4th Cir. June 28, 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (stating that "[g]enerally, pre- clusion is considered a drastic remedy, and it is not imposed unless the party’s conduct is in bad faith or callous disregard of the discovery rules").
discussed Cited "see" Southern States Rack and Fixture, Incorporated v. Sherwin-Williams Company, and Keller Rigging & Construction Sc, Incorporated
4th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tritchler v. Consolidation Coal Co., 91 F.3d 134 , 1996 WL 379706, at *2 (4th Cir. June 28, 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (stating that ''[generally, preclusion is considered a drastic remedy, and it is not imposed unless the party’s conduct is in bad faith or callous disregard of the discovery rules”).
discussed Cited "see" Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG
E.D. Va. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tritchler v. Consolidation Coal Co., 91 F.3d 134 , 1996 WL 379706, *2 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion) (“Generally, preclusion is considered a drastic remedy, and it is not imposed unless the party’s conduct is in bad faith or callous disregard of the discovery rules”).
cited Cited "see" Alamin v. Zerlinski
W.D.N.C. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See 91 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1996) (table).
cited Cited "see" Alamin v. Gerlinski
M.D. Penn. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See 91 F.3d 134 (4th Cir.l996)(table).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alliance for Natural Health US v. Sebelius
D.D.C. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cir. 1999) (equivalent language in another Executive Order precluded plaintiff from suing for violation of the order or invoking the order’s provisions as evidence of arbitrary and capricious agency action); see also Trawler Diane Marie, Inc. v. Brown, 918 F. Supp. 921, 932 (E.D.N.C. 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1996) (table) (Executive Order 12866 does not permit private lawsuits to challenge an agency’s compliance). 33
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius
D.D.C. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ass’n of Am. v. FAA, 169 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C.Cir.1999) (equivalent language in another Executive Order precluded plaintiff from suing for violation of the order or invoking the order's provisions as evidence of arbitrary and capricious agency action); see also Trawler Diane Marie, Inc. v. Brown, 918 F.Supp. 921, 932 (E.D.N.C.1995), aff'd, 91 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1996) (table) (Executive Order 12866 does not permit private lawsuits to challenge an agency's compliance).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
James Alexander Bruner
95-6878.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 27, 1996.
91 F.3d 134
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: D. Maryland (1)

91 F.3d 134

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee,
v.
James Alexander BRUNER, Defendant--Appellant.

No. 95-6878.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 14, 1996
Decided: June 27, 1996

James Alexander Bruner, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Franklin Askins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bruner, Nos. CR-94-93-F; CA-95-438-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 23, 1995). Regarding Appellant's claim that the district court erred in proceeding under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, we find the claim meritless. We note that the district court's order recognizes the discrepancy between the offense of conviction stated in the judgment (possession of an explosive) and the offense Bruner actually pled guilty to which was "attempt to possess." Order at 6-7. To remedy this inconsistency, we suggest that the district court amend the judgment to reflect that Bruner was convicted of "attempt to possess" rather than "possession of an explosive." We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

DISMISSED