[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11847

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-80150-RLR

PRESLEY AND PRESLEY, PA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 5, 2019)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

This is the third of three related appeals challenging summonses the Internal 

Revenue Service (“IRS”) sent to a bank requesting account records in the course of 

Case: 18-11847 Date Filed: 02/05/2019 Page: 1 of 4 
2

investigating the federal income-tax liabilities of Michael Presley, Cynthia Presley, 

Presley and Presley, P.A., Presley Law and Associates, P.A., and BMP Family 

Limited Partnership, which includes as partners Michael, Cynthia, and other 

members of the Presley family. This appeal, for instance, concerns an IRS 

summons issued in February 2018 relating to the 2015 income-tax liabilities of 

Presley and Presley, P.A. In each of the three cases, the taxpayer or taxpayers at 

issue petitioned the district court to quash the IRS summonses on the ground that at 

least some of the requested records revealed clients’ private financial information. 

The district court separately dismissed all three cases, and we have affirmed the 

court twice already. See Presley v. United States, 895 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2018); 

BMP Family Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 741 F. App’x 764 (11th Cir. 2018). We 

do so again. 

The parties have stipulated that our decision in Presley is “dispositive of this 

case” because each of the arguments raised by the appellant in this case—Presley 

and Presley, P.A.—was considered and rejected in Presley. These arguments are 

(1) that the Fourth Amendment obligates the government to demonstrate probable 

cause because the appellant’s clients had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the 

records held by the bank; and (2) that the IRS was obligated to proceed under 26 

U.S.C. § 7609(f) by issuing John Doe summonses to the appellant’s clients and 

Case: 18-11847 Date Filed: 02/05/2019 Page: 2 of 4 
3

petitioning the district court for an ex parte hearing before obtaining the account 

records. Presley, 895 F.3d at 1287–88.

Presley rejects these arguments. Briefly stated, we held that probable cause 

was not required because the clients lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in 

financial records held by the bank, that the IRS summonses were reasonable under 

the Fourth Amendment, and that the procedures required by § 7609(f) did not 

apply. Id. at 1291–95. We further rejected the alternative argument that the Right 

to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 3401–3422, prohibited 

enforcement of the IRS summonses at issue. Id. at 1292 (noting that the RFPA 

“explicitly provides that ‘[n]othing in this chapter prohibits the disclosure of 

financial records in accordance with procedures authorized by Title 26’”) (quoting 

12 U.S.C. § 3413(c)). So we held that the IRS could enforce the summonses. 

The appellant here has raised no argument that was not considered and 

rejected in Presley. Despite this, the appellant suggests that, even if we follow 

Presley, which of course we must, we should remand to allow it to amend its 

petition to bring a challenge under the RFPA. But not only would this be improper 

as a procedural matter, given that this ground was not raised below, it also would 

conflict with Presley, which determined that the “RFPA d[id] not help” the 

appellants in that case. Id. at 1292. It does not appear that the underlying 

circumstances here are materially different from those in Presley. Accordingly, we 

Case: 18-11847 Date Filed: 02/05/2019 Page: 3 of 4 
4

affirm the dismissal of the appellant’s petition to quash for the reasons explained 

more fully in Presley. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11847 Date Filed: 02/05/2019 Page: 4 of 4