*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 circumstancesset forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20628

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE HENDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(No. 4:05-MC-0073)

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Henderson appeals from the district court’s enforcement of an administrative

summons from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2004, the IRS served an administrative summons on Henderson to gather

evidence related to Henderson’s tax liability for 1999, 2000, and 2001. Henderson did not comply

with the summons, and the United States sought enforcement of the summons in district court. The
1Henderson’s claim that he is not a citizen of the United Statesisfrivolous. See, e.g., United

States v. Price, 798 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1986).

2

district court issued an enforcement order against Henderson, which he appeals to this court.

Henderson argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over him and that his Fifth Amendment

right against self-incrimination was violated by the summons.

II. DISCUSSION

We review both of Henderson’s challenges de novo. See, e.g., Pederson v. Louisiana State

Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 869 (5th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of jurisdictional issues); FDIC v. Fid. &

Deposit Co. of Maryland, 45 F.3d 969, 977 (5th Cir. 1995) (de novo review oflegal issues, including

Fifth Amendment challenges). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

is an Article III court established by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 124. The IRS has authority under

26 U.S.C. § 7602(a) to issue an administrative summons in order to “determin[e] the liability of any

person for any internalrevenue tax” and to seek enforcement of that summonsin federal court under

26 U.S.C. § 7604. Both of these statutes are federal laws that the district court has jurisdiction to

consider under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court had personal jurisdiction over Henderson because of

his domicile in the jurisdiction. See, e.g., Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463-64 (1940); see also

26 U.S.C. § 7604(a).1 Thus, the district court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over

the enforcement action brought by the IRS. We also note that the IRS summons was valid under

United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). See also United States v. Wyatt, 637 F.2d 293,

300 (5th Cir. 1981).

The district court’s enforcement of the summons did not violate Henderson’s Fifth

Amendment right to not incriminate himself. An administrative summons implicates the Fifth
3

Amendment if itssole purpose isto build a criminal case. United States v. Roundtree, 420 F.2d 845,

852 (5th Cir. 1969). There is no indication that the government’s sole purpose in enforcing the

summons was to gather evidence to bring criminal charges against Henderson; instead, the purpose

of the summons, partially if not entirely, was to assess Henderson’s tax liability. Therefore, the

enforcement of the summons did not violate the Fifth Amendment.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.