Task: songer_exhaust

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court determine that it would not hear the appeal for one of the following reasons: a) administrative remedies had not been exhausted; or b) the issue was not ripe for judicial action?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
This three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States Tax Court sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s deficiency and additional tax assessments in the petitioner’s federal income taxes for the years 1975-1979.
Upon being notified by the Commissioner that a deficiency existed, petitioner sought a redetermination in the United States Tax Court. In that petition he claimed that the wages and number of hours used to determine the deficiency, as shown by the Department of Labor statistics, were not correctly applied in his case.
After a hearing before the tax court, where petitioner appeared pro se, the deficiency and additional taxes determined by the Commissioner were sustained. This appeal followed.
On appeal, petitioner claims primarily that the tax court failed to recognize his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
A review of the record of the proceedings in the tax court reveals that the petitioner was treated fairly by the court. He was given ample opportunity to argue his ease and submit any supporting evidence. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attributed to the Commissioner’s federal income tax deficiency and additional tax assessments. Ruidoso Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. Comm’r, 476 F.2d 502 (10th Cir.1973). The findings of fact made by the tax court were not clearly erroneous. See Merchants Nat’l Bank of Topeka v. Comm’r, 554 F.2d 412 (10th Cir.1977).
The Fifth Amendment general objection has been repeatedly determined by this court not to be a valid claim of the constitutional privilege. United States v. Stillhammer, 706 F.2d 1072, 1076 (10th Cir.1983).
The respondent requests on appeal that this court consider entering sanctions against the petitioner pursuant to Fed.R. App.P. 38.
Petitioner did not raise any issue at any level of review that has not already been addressed by this court or other circuits numerous times. Petitioner made little, if any, attempt in the tax court to produce books and records of his income to rebut the presumption of correctness. The tax court judge found the petitioner’s arguments lacking in legal merit. We agree with that finding.
This court has the inherent power to impose a variety of sanctions in order to regulate our docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous filings. See, e.g., Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2463-64, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Whitney v. Cook, 99 U.S. 607 (1878). We have imposed double costs and attorney’s fees for the taking of frivolous appeals in other contexts. See, e.g., United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 F.2d 462, 464 (10th Cir.1980).
Accordingly, double costs and attorney’s fees are hereby imposed against petitioner for the taking of a frivolous appeal. The matter is REMANDED to the United States Tax Court to make the appropriate determinations. The judgment of the tax court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Question: Did the court determine that it would not hear the appeal for one of the following reasons: a) administrative remedies had not been exhausted; or b) the issue was not ripe for judicial action?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D