Case ID: f-appx_457/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eldo KLINGENBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 09-72945.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2011.
    Eldo Klingenberg, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.
    Laurie Snyder, John A. Dicicco, Esquire, Deputy, Nathan J. Hochman, Esquire, Richard T. Morrison, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eldo Klingenberg appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing his petition contesting a proposed levy to collect unpaid income tax liabilities for tax years 1998 through 2003. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion the Tax Court’s decision to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. Edelson v. Comm’r, 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Klingenberg’s petition for failure to prosecute because Klingen-berg failed to appear at trial and failed to engage in the mandatory stipulation process, despite warnings that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the petition. See id. (court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the taxpayers’ petitions for failure to prosecute where the taxpayers had, among other things, failed to appear for trial).

Klingenberg’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.