* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50356

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LES ROY REID

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-cv-00118

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges..

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal from a district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of the government for unpaid federal income taxes and the order of sale

that was based on the summary judgment. We affirm.

Itis undisputed that Defendant-Appellantfailed to file income tax returns

for the years 1996, 1997, and 1999. The IRS assessed tax liabilities, interest,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 7, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50356

2

fees and collections costs. Although Defendant-Appellant received notice of the

assessments and demand for payment, he failed to make any payment. 

On November 29, 2006, the government filed suit to reduce the unpaid

assessments to judgment and to foreclose the tax liens against DefendantAppellant’s real property. Defendant-Appellant filed a petition to dismiss,

asserting, among other things, that although he was an “inhabitant on the land

on Texas,” he was not a citizen of the United States and that the district court

had neither “venue nor jurisdiction over the assessed taxes.” DefendantAppellant filed an answer admitting that he owned the real property.

Defendant-Appellant presented no evidence to show that the assessments or

liens were invalid. The government filed a motion for summary judgment, which

the district court granted, ordering judgmentin the amount of $125,811.27, plus

interest and additions provided by law until the judgment was paid. 

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,

applying the same standards as the district court. E.g., Hirras v. Nat’l R.R.

Passenger Corp., 95 F.3d 396, 399 (5th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is proper

if the record reflects “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.

56(c). 

Defendant-Appellant appeals and asks this Court to “declare the lower

court’s proceedings and orders void ab initio with prejudice.” We need not tarry

long with this argument. Defendant-Appellant’s brief “is a hodgepodge of

unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish.” Crain

v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984). Defendant-Appellant did

not present any relevant evidence disputing the validity of the assessments or

the federal tax lien. Nor has the Defendant-Appellant raised any nonfrivolous

arguments disputing the validity of the tax assessments and the lien. “The

Commissioner’s assessment is accorded a presumption of correctness, thus
No. 08-50356

3

placing the burden on the taxpayer ‘to prove by a preponderance of the evidence

that the Commissioner’s determination was erroneous.’” Carson v. United

States, 560 F.2d 693, 696 (5th Cir. 1977). Defendant-Appellant has failed to

raise a genuine issue of material fact. We thus affirm the district court’s grant

of summary judgment in favor of the government.

Finally, the government has filed a motion for $8,000 in sanctions

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38. Finding the appeal frivolous, we grant the

motion. See Wallis v. Commissioner of I.R.S., 203 Fed.Appx. 591 (5th Cir. Oct.

24, 2006) (No. 06-60256) (granting the motion for sanctions based on filing a

frivolous appeal).

For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary

judgment and GRANT the motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000.

AFFIRMED.