United States of America; Jon Sustarich v. Mark Ottovich

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JON
SUSTARICH,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
MARK OTTOVICH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-17326
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01793-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Mark Ottovich appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the
government’s petition to enforce a summons against him in connection with an
investigation into income tax liabilities of his mother’s estate. We have
FILED
OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17326 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error. United States v.
Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err by granting the petition because
Ottovich failed to rebut the government’s showing that the summons was issued in
good faith. See Stewart v. United States, 511 F.3d 1251, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 2008)
(explaining taxpayer’s “heavy” burden to show an abuse of process or lack of good
faith once government makes prima facie showing that the summons was issued in
good faith); Crystal v. United States, 172 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 1999) ( “The
government’s burden is a slight one, and may be satisfied by a declaration from the
investigating agent[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --