United States v. James Witt , 678 F. App'x 587 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-16721
Petitioner-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00418-LJO-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES W. WITT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
James W. Witt appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the
Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) petition to enforce a summons. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s
summons-enforcement decision. United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 563 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err by granting the petition because the
United States met its burden of establishing its prima facie case for enforcement of
the IRS summons, and Witt failed to rebut that showing. See United States v.
Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964) (setting forth requirements for establishing a
prima facie case for enforcement, and explaining that the burden is on the taxpayer
to show an abuse of the process); United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407,
1414 (9th Cir. 1993) (once a prima facie case is made a heavy burden is placed on
the taxpayer to show an abuse of process or the lack of institutional good faith).
We reject as without merit Witt’s contentions that the district court was
biased and violated his due process rights.
Witt’s motion filed on April 21, 2016, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16721