United States of America v. Peymon Mottahedeh

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PEYMON MOTTAHEDEH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-56980
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02740-PA-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Peymon Mottahedeh appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment for the United States in its action seeking to reduce federal income tax
assessments to judgment. We dismiss.
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56980 2
We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment because
Mottahedeh’s notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after entry of
judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Hostler v. Groves, 912 F.2d 1158, 1160
(9th Cir. 1990) (“[W]e must address the question [of appellate jurisdiction] sua
sponte.”); Miller v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The
filing of an effective notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement which cannot
be waived.”). The motion for reconsideration of the denial of Mottahedeh’s
motion to suppress evidence did not toll the time to appeal from the judgment. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (listing tolling motions).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --