Case ID: f-appx_402/html/0246-01.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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peymon MOTTAHEDEH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-56980.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 1, 2010.
    Thomas D. Coker, Esquire, USLA-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney Los Angeles, CA, Bruce R. Ellisen, Curtis Clarence Pett, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peymon Mottahedeh, Phelan, CA, pro se.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Peymon Mottahedeh appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the United States in its action seeking to reduce federal income tax assessments to judgment. We dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment because Mottahedeh’s notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after entry of judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Hostler v. Groves, 912 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir.1990) (“[W]e must address the question [of appellate jurisdiction] sua sponte. Miller v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.2002) (“The filing of an effective notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement which cannot be waived.”). The motion for reconsideration of the denial of Mottahedeh’s motion to suppress evidence did not toll the time to appeal from the judgment. See Fed.R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (listing tolling motions).

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