United States v. 2020-05-13 | 19-70314 | RICHARD LEVIN V. CIR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD H. LEVIN; LINDA D. LEVIN,

Petitioners-Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-70314

IRS No. 11578-14L

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Richard H. Levin, an attorney, and Linda D. Levin appeal pro se from the
Tax Court’s summary judgment upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s
determination to collect by levy the appellants’ unpaid federal income taxes for the
year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-70314
novo the Tax Court’s summary judgment, Johnston v. Comm’r, 461 F.3d 1162,
1164 (9th Cir. 2006), and for an abuse of discretion the Tax Court’s evidentiary
rulings, Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in considering the settlement
officer’s declaration and administrative record when evaluating the motion for
summary judgment. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (authentication requirement is
satisfied by “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
proponent claims it is”); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (7) (authentication by witness
testimony and evidence that document was filed in a public office); United States
v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1191-93 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 901 permits a court to
admit evidence if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a trier of fact can
find in favor of authenticity or identification).
We do not consider issues raised by the appellants in their brief which are
not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED.