UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
COASTAL UTILITIES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 2008-01-23
No. 07-12484
Before HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and MOORE, District Judge.
514 F.3d 1184 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 25 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: After review and oral argument, the Court affirms the district court’s grant of Plaintiff-Appellee United States of America’s motion for summary judgment and its denial of Defendant-Appellant Coastal Utilities, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons outlined in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order, published at United States v. Coastal Utilities, Inc., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (S.D.Ga.2007).

The district court concluded that the federal universal service support payments and Georgia Universal Access Fund payments that Coastal Utilities received in 1998 were income rather that “contribution^]” to the capital of the taxpayer under section 118(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. § 118(a). The Court agrees with the district court’s analysis of the facts and applicable law and thus adopts in full the district court’s order, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1232-51, as the published opinion of this Court in this case. AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015)
    …otation marks omitted). We may affirm a sentencing enhancement “for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Chitwood, 676 F. 3d 971, 975 (11th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F. 3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir.2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). III. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion into two parts. First, we explain that the district court did not err in denying Matchett’s motion to suppress. Next, we explain that advisory gui…
  • Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013)
    …vo the availability of habeas relief under § 2241, Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F. 3d 1279, 1280 (11th Cir.2006), and “we may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F. 3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1. The Intersection of §§ 2255 and 2241 “Typically, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal sentence must be brought under § 2255.” Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F. 3d 942,…
  • United States v. Chitwood, 676 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2012)
    …of violence’ under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Lockley, 632 F. 3d 1238, 1240 (11th Cir.2011). And “we may affirm ‘for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.’ ” United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F. 3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Williams v. Bd. of Regents, 477 F. 3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir.2007)). Under § 4B1.2 of the guidelines, any state or federal offense that is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment can be a crime of violence if…

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw