Samuel Bates v. United States

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL D. BATES; JOYCE M. No. 09-15577
BATES,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00817-LKK-
Plaintiffs - Appellants, EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Samuel D. Bates and Joyce M. Bates appeal pro se from the district court’s
order dismissing in part for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying in part
their petition to quash three Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) summonses issued
*
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).
under 26 U.S.C. § 7602. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Ip v. United States, 205 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 2000) (subject matter
jurisdiction); Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1995) (statutory
interpretation). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the petition with respect to Safe
America Credit Union because the Bateses failed to file their petition in the proper
district court. See Fortney, 59 F.3d at 119 (a district court lacks jurisdiction to
consider petitions to quash summonses issued to entities not residing or found in
the district in which that court is located).
The district court properly denied the motion to quash the remaining
summonses because the Bateses failed to rebut the IRS’s showing that the
summonses were issued in good faith. See Stewart v. United States, 511 F.3d
1251, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 2008) (a taxpayer has a heavy burden to show an abuse of
process or lack of good faith once the IRS makes a prima facie showing that a
summons was issued in good faith).
The Bateses’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Because the outcome of this appeal was obvious, sanctions are warranted
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. See Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v.
2 09-15577
United States, 376 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Hence, we grant the
government’s unopposed motion for $8,000 in appellate sanctions.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-15577