Richard Levin v. Cir

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 13, 2020
• Docket: 19-70314
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAY 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD H. LEVIN; LINDA D. LEVIN, No. 19-70314

Petitioners-Appellants, IRS No. 11578-14L

v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Tax Court

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Richard H. Levin, an attorney, and Linda D. Levin appeal pro se from the

Tax Court’s summary judgment upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s

determination to collect by levy the appellants’ unpaid federal income taxes for the

year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). novo the Tax Court’s summary judgment, Johnston v. Comm’r, 461 F.3d 1162,

1164 (9th Cir. 2006), and for an abuse of discretion the Tax Court’s evidentiary

rulings, Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in considering the settlement

officer’s declaration and administrative record when evaluating the motion for

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (authentication requirement is

satisfied by “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the

proponent claims it is”); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (7) (authentication by witness

testimony and evidence that document was filed in a public office); United States

v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1191-93 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 901 permits a court to

admit evidence if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a trier of fact can

find in favor of authenticity or identification).

We do not consider issues raised by the appellants in their brief which are

not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.

1992).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-70314