Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0587-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James W. WITT, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 15-16721
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 27, 2017
    Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Bridget Maria Rowan, Attorney, Jennifer Marie Rubin, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner-Appellee
    James W. Witt, Pro Se
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James W. Witt appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) petition to' enforce a summons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s summons-enforcement decision. United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 563 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by granting the petition because the United States met its burden of establishing its prima facie case for enforcement of the IRS summons, and Witt failed to rebut that showing. See United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964) (setting forth requirements for establishing a prima facie case for enforcement, and explaining that the burden is on the taxpayer to show an ábuse of the process); United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993) (once a prima facie case is made a heavy burden is placed on the taxpayer to show an abuse of process or the lack of institutional good faith).

We reject as without merit Witt’s contentions that the district court was biased and violated his due process rights.

Witt’s motion filed on April 21, 2016, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.