Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leone CAREY; et al., Defendants, and John Carey; et al., Applicants for Intervention-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-01
Citations: 441 F. App'x 480
Docket Number: No. 10-16278
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leone CAREY; et al., Defendants, and John Carey; et al., Applicants for Intervention-Appellants.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 461
Pages: 480–480

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leone CAREY; et al., Defendants, and John Carey; et al., Applicants for Intervention-Appellants.
No. 10-16278.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed July 1, 2011.
Kari D. Larson, Esquire, Richard Far-ber, Esquire, Supervisory, Steven W. Parks, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leone Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.
Michael Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
John Carey, Byron Carey, and George Carey ("the Careys") appeal pro se from the district court's order denying their motion to intervene in the government's action to foreclose federal tax liens against Michael and Leone Carey. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Careys' motion to intervene was untimely because it was filed nearly three years after the district court granted summary judgment, and the Careys provided no explanation for their delay. See id. at 1302-07 (motion was untimely where there was a twenty-seven month delay, which the intervenor failed adequately to explain).
Contrary to the Careys' contentions, the district court had jurisdiction. See 26 U.S.C. § 7403(a), (c) (providing for jurisdiction over cases by the United States to enforce tax liens against a debtor's property); 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) (providing district courts with jurisdiction to issue writs necessary to enforce the internal revenue laws).
The Careys' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.