KEITH R. DeORIO, dba DeORIO WELLNESS CENTER v. United States of America

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KEITH R. DeORIO, dba DeORIO
WELLNESS CENTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; A.
GONZALES, IRS Agent; BANK OF THE
WEST,
Respondents.
No. 08-57064
D.C. No. 08-cv-932-CJC-ANx
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-57064 2
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Keith R. DeOrio, dba DeOrio Wellness Center, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his petition
to quash an Internal Revenue Service summons under 26 U.S.C. § 7902(b). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 7609(h)(1). We review
de novo, Ip v. United States, 205 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the petition because DeOrio was not
entitled to notice of the third-party summons issued to aid in collecting the unpaid
assessed taxes of a predecessor or alter ego of DeOrio’s business. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 7609(c)(2)(D) (notice of summons under section 7609(a) need not be given when
summons is issued in aid of collection of a tax assessed against the liable party or a
transferee); see also Ip, 205 F.3d at 1170 n.3.
DeOrio’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive, and we do not consider
issues he raises for the first time on appeal. See Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146
F.3d 629, 238 (9th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --