United States v. Randal Howard , 442 F. App'x 262 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUL 7 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-15644
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00620-DCB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    RANDAL W. HOWARD,
    Defendant - Appellant,
    and
    DEPARTMENT OF ARIZONA
    REVENUE,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 15, 2011 **
    Before:        CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    *
    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).
    Randal W. Howard appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
    judgment for the government in its action to reduce to judgment unpaid tax
    assessments and foreclose on federal tax liens on Howard’s property. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hughes v. United States,
    
    953 F.2d 531
    , 541 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Howard
    failed to controvert the government’s Certificates of Assessments and Payments
    demonstrating that the assessments were properly made. See 
    id. at 540
    (Certificates of Assessments and Payments are “probative evidence in and of
    themselves and, in the absence of contrary evidence, are sufficient to establish that
    . . . assessments were properly made.”). Accordingly, the district court properly
    concluded that Howard’s property could be sold to satisfy his tax debt. See 26
    U.S.C. §§ 7402(a), 7403(a).
    Howard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    10-15644
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-15644

Citation Numbers: 442 F. App'x 262

Judges: Canby, Fisher, O'Scannlain

Filed Date: 7/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023