T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LERO Y J O H N D I SSI N G ER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ; e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 55128 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 1 - c v - 0 4 6 3 1 - J H N - SS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a c que l i ne H . N guy e n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r15, 2013 ** B efo re: F IS H E R , G O U L D , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L er oy John D i ss i ng erappeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s order di sm i ss i ng w i tho utprej ud i ce hi s pet i t i on t o q uash an Int ernal R evenue S ervi ce sum m on s i ss ued t o a thi rd party i n con nect i on w i th an i nv es t i gat i on of hi s f eder al t a x l i ab i l i t i e s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d2 6 U . S. C. 

# FI LED OC T 23 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 55128 2 § 7609( h) ( 1) . W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on r e g a r d in g th e s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

s e rv ic e o f

p r o c e s s , R i o P rops. , Inc. v. R i o Int ’l I nte r l i nk , 2 8 4 F .3 d1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n dits d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to c o m p le te s e rv ic e in atim e lym a n n e r , O y am a v . She e han (

I n r e She e han) , 253 F . 3d 5 0 7 , 5 1 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bydi s m i s s i ng w i thout pr e j udi c e D i s s i nge r ’ s pe t i t i on be c aus e , a s D i s s i nge rnow c onc e de s , he di d not e f f e c tua t e s e rvi c e a s r e qui r e d unde rF e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 4, a nd he f a ile dto p r o v id e s u f

f ic ie n t r e a s o n f

o rn o t d o in g s o . See Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 4 ( i ) , ( m) (s ett i ng forth the re qu i re m ent s f or se rvi ce on the U ni t ed S t at es and the 12 0-day d e a d lin e f

o rc o m p le tin g s e rv ic e ) ; Mol l ison v. U ni ted States , 568 F . 3d 1073, 1077 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( Ru l e 4 ( m) ap p l i e s t o s e rv i c e o f ap e t i t i o n u n d e r2 6 U . S. C. § 7 6 0 9 ( b ) ) ; I

n r e She e han , 253 F . 3d a t512 ( e xpl a i ni ng the r e qui r e m e nt s f or show i ng go od cause und erR ul e 4(m )) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng D i s s i nge r ’ s m ot i on for r el i ef un der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 60 (b)( 1) because D i ss i ng erfa i l ed to s h o w e x c u s ab le n e g le c t. See L em og e v . U ni ted States , 587 F . 3d 1188, 1191- 92 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( s e tt i ng f orth the s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w a nd f

a c t or s f orde t e rm i ni ng w hen n egl ec ti s e xcusabl e) .12- 55128 3 D i ss i ng er ’ s c on t ent i on thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n rej ec t i ng hi s r epl y bri ef a s unt i m e l yi s uns upport e d bythe r e c or d. AF F I RME D.