SEQUOIA PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, Limited Partnership 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEQUOIA PROPERTY AND
EQUIPMENT, Limited Partnership,
Plaintiff,
WANDA JEAN CRISP,
Counter-claimant,
and
G. MARK CRISP; RHONDA CRISP,
Counter-claimants -
Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-17135
D.C. No. 1:97-cv-05044-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
11-17135 2
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
G. Mark Crisp and Rhonda Crisp appeal pro se from the district court’s
order of judicial sale in the government’s action to reduce to judgment federal
income tax assessments against them and to foreclose on federal tax liens to satisfy
the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion, United States v. Overman, 424 F.2d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.
1970), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the order of judicial
sale to enforce a judgment against the Crisps, including by imposing reasonable
terms and conditions on the Crisps to maintain the properties at issue in good
condition pending the sale and to vacate the property they occupied before the sale.
See 26 U.S.C. § 7403(c) (authorizing district court to decree a sale of property
subject to federal tax lien according to its findings regarding the interests of all
parties); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2001 (authorizing district court to order any sales of
real property “upon such terms and conditions as the court directs”). Moreover,
the district court’s instructions that the Crisps refrain from publishing notices or

-- 2 of 3 --

11-17135 3
taking other actions that might adversely affect the value of the properties or
discourage potential bidders burdened no more speech than necessary to serve the
government’s significant interest in enforcing federal tax laws. See Madsen v.
Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765 (1994) (content-neutral injunction
does not violate First Amendment if “the challenged provisions of the injunction
burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest”).
We decline to address the Crisps’ arguments regarding Wanda Crisp because
she is not a party to this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2) (“A pro se notice of
appeal is considered filed on behalf of the signer and the signer’s spouse and minor
children (if they are parties), unless the notice clearly indicates otherwise.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --