Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0706-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keith R. DeORIO, d/b/a Deorio Wellness Center, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee, and Internal Revenue Service; A. Gonzales, IRS Agent; Bank of the West, Respondents.
    No. 08-57064.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Keith R. DeOrio, La Habra, CA, pro se.
    
      Sara Ann Ketchum, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Richard Gordon Stack, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorneys Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Keith R. DeOrio, dba DeOrio Wellness Center, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his petition to quash an Internal Revenue Service summons under 26 U.S.C. § 7602(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h)(1). We review de novo, Ip v. United States, 205 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the petition because DeOrio was not entitled to notice of the third-party summons issued to aid in collecting the unpaid assessed taxes of a predecessor or alter ego of DeOrio’s business. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D) (notice of summons under section 7609(a) need not be given when summons is issued in aid of collection of a tax assessed against the liable party or a transferee); see also Ip, 205 F.3d at 1170 n. 3.

DeOrio’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive, and we do not consider issues he raises for the first time on appeal. See Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir.1998).

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