Case Name: Barry L. MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-03
Citations: 431 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 09-70111
Parties: Barry L. MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RespondentAppellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
Barry L. MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RespondentAppellee.
No. 09-70111.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed May 3, 2011.
Barry L. Morris, Walnut Creek, CA, pro se.
Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Bruce R. Ellisen, Marion E.M. Erickson, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Barry L. Morris, an attorney, appeals pro se from the tax court's order denying his petition for redetermination of federal income tax deficiencies for tax years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion the tax court's decisions regarding the admission of evidence. Hudspeth v. Comm'r, 914 F.2d 1207, 1213 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.
The tax court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to admit into evidence documents that Morris belatedly produced to the Commissioner, without explanation and in violation of the court's standing pretrial order, after giving Morris several extensions of time to present his case. See Tax Ct. R. 131(b) (unexcused failure to comply with a standing pretrial order may subject a party to sanctions, such as those provided in Tax Ct. R. 104); Tax Ct. R. 104(c)(2) (tax court may issue an order prohibiting a party from introducing designated matters into evidence); see also United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 886 n. 5 (9th Cir.1981).
Morris's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.