United States v. Howe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 23, 2026
• Docket: 25-2584
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2584

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:19-cv-00421-DCN

EBENEZER K. HOWE IV, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant,

and

PHI DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2026**

Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Ebenezer K. Howe IV appeals pro se from the district court’s order of sale

* 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). and summary judgment for the United States in its action to reduce to judgment

income tax assessments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Healy v. Milliman, Inc., 164 F.4th 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2026). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Howe failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was not liable for the

assessments. See Oliver v. United States, 921 F.2d 916, 919-20 (9th Cir. 1990)

(explaining that after the government introduces “into evidence its assessment of

taxes due . . . the taxpayer then has the burden” of proving that he is not liable for

the assessment); see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir.

1992) (“Official certificates, such as Form 4340, can constitute proof of the fact

that the assessments actually were made.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Howe’s motion to

reopen discovery. See Panatronic USA v. AT&T Corp., 287 F.3d 840, 846 (9th

Cir. 2002) (setting forth the standard of review, and explaining that a movant must

show that they diligently pursued their previous discovery opportunities and

additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment).

We reject as unsupported by the record Howe’s contentions that the district

court acted improperly and that the United States has unclean hands.

We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly argued in the

opening brief. See Roley v. Google LLC, 40 F.4th 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2022).

2 25-2584 All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-2584