United States v. Lowell Baisden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-15023
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01368-AWI-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LOWELL BAISDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Lowell Baisden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment modifying
a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 barring Baisden from promoting an
abusive tax scheme. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s legal conclusions, for clear error its factual findings, and
*
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).
for an abuse of discretion its decision to grant a permanent injunction and the
scope of the injunction. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020,
1030 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the permanent
injunction, as modified, because the injunction “state[s] its terms specifically” and
“describe[s] in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 65(d)(1); United States v. Kapp, 564 F.3d 1103, 1114 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding
against a vagueness and overbreadth challenge an injunction prohibiting a
defendant from preparing tax returns claiming a specified tax deduction).
We reject as meritless Baisden’s contentions that the injunction punishes
past conduct and violates his First Amendment rights. See United States v. Estate
Pres. Servs., 202 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding against a First
Amendment challenge a 26 U.S.C. § 7408 injunction because it “proscribes only
fraudulent conduct” and defendants “may continue to publish legitimate tax
planning advice”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-15023