Edwin Jonas, III v. Cir , 457 F. App'x 655 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             NOV 02 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    EDWIN RITTER JONAS III, Esquire,                 No. 09-72248
    Petitioner - Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 07-6384
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted October 25, 2011 **
    Before:        TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Edwin Ritter Jonas III appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order sustaining a
    notice of federal income tax deficiency for tax years 2002 and 2003. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion.
    River City Ranches #1 Ltd. v. Comm’r, 
    401 F.3d 1136
    , 1139 (9th Cir. 2005)
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    (discovery); Liti v. Comm’r, 
    289 F.3d 1103
    , 1105 (9th Cir. 2002) (sanctions). We
    affirm.
    The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting discovery from Jonas’s
    ex-wife and her divorce attorney concerning the constructive trust, in light of the
    orders from New Jersey courts denying Jonas access to constructive trust evidence.
    See, e.g., Younger v. Harris, 
    401 U.S. 37
    , 44 (1971) (explaining principles of
    comity). Nor did the Tax Court abuse its discretion in declining to hold Jonas’s
    ex-wife and her attorney in contempt, because they had adequate excuses for not
    providing all of the documents requested in the trial subpoena. See Tax Ct.
    R. 147(e) (“Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena
    served upon any such person may be deemed a contempt of the Court.”).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
    (per curiam).
    Jonas’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      09-72248
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-72248

Citation Numbers: 457 F. App'x 655

Judges: Gould, Rawlinson, Trott

Filed Date: 11/2/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023