Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Robert F. Smith, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-10-2358-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Robert F. Smith filed a request for a certificate of appealability of the 

Court’s order of June 18, 2012, which granted summary judgment to the United States on 

its action to reduce Mr. Smith’s federal tax assessments to judgment. Doc. 80; see

Doc. 77. Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a 

petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding receive a certificate of appealability before 

appealing (Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)), but Mr. Smith appeals from a civil judgment. Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the filing of his appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); 

see U.S. v. Plechner, 577 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1978) (finding that Rule 4(a) governing the 

filing of appeals in civil cases applied to enforcement of a bond even when appealed from 

as part of a criminal proceeding). 

 Under Rule 4(a)(1)(A), a notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk 

within 30 days after the judgment or the order appealed from is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A). When, as here, the United States is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed 

within 60 days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Mr. Smith filed his request on August 15, 

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 83 Filed 09/07/12 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2012, less than 60 after the order he appeals from was entered, and the Clerk’s Office and 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have construed Mr. Smith’s request as a notice of 

appeal. Docs. 81, 82. The Court need take no further action. See United Nat=l Ins. Co. v. 

R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once a notice of appeal takes 

effect, the district court loses jurisdiction over the matter placed before the appellate 

court.”). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiff Robert F. Smith’s request for a Certificate of Appealability is 

moot. 

 Dated this 7th day of September, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 83 Filed 09/07/12 Page 2 of 2