Opinion ID: 161742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Administrative Appeal

Text: The Treasury Department’s administrative decision to disbar plaintiff from practicing before the IRS was based on three instances of “disreputable conduct,” as defined in 31 C.F.R. § 10.51. Plaintiff challenges the administrative decision on the following grounds: (1) the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the wrong standard of proof; (2) plaintiff was denied due process, including discovery; (3) the instances of disreputable conduct were not supported by substantial evidence; (4) the ALJ erred in refusing to impose sanctions against the attorneys prosecuting the administrative action; and (5) the ALJ was biased against plaintiff, thereby entitling him to a new administrative hearing before a different ALJ. He further complains that there was neither subject-matter jurisdiction nor personal jurisdiction in the administrative proceeding. Because plaintiff is representing himself on appeal, his pleadings will be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Our review of the Treasury Department’s administrative decision is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. We examine the agency’s action to determine whether it was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Wyo. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt , 199 F.3d 1224, 1231 (10th Cir. -3- 2000). We will affirm the agency’s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. Custer County Action Ass’n v. Garvey , 256 F.3d 1024, 1030 (10th Cir. 2001). We review de novo the legal issues and constitutional claims. Id. We have carefully reviewed the administrative record and we have considered the arguments and authorities presented by the parties. Applying the standards set out above for review of an administrative decision, we affirm the Treasury Department’s decision for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its October 31, 2000 memorandum opinion. The district court’s memorandum opinion does not address plaintiff’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction or his claim that the ALJ should have sanctioned the prosecuting attorneys. Plaintiff has not presented any argument or authorities to support his jurisdictional challenge; therefore, we do not address it. See Phillips v. Calhoun , 956 F.2d 949, 953-54 (10th Cir. 1992) (party must support argument with legal authority). We also do not address his sanctions claim because he has not shown where in the record the issue was presented to the district court. See Chambers v. Family Health Plan Corp. , 100 F.3d 818, 822 (10th Cir. 1996) (court of appeals generally does not consider arguments not presented to district court); Gross v. Burggraf Constr. Co. , 53 F.3d 1531, 1546 (10th Cir. 1995) (appellate court will not search record to find evidence to -4- support arguments); see also Ogden v. San Juan County , 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse his obligation to fulfill the “fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure”) (citation omitted).