FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-16801
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02358-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT F. SMITH, Sr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Taxpayer Robert Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment for the United States in its action to reduce to judgment federal income
tax assessments from tax years 1999 to 2002. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 541
*
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).
(9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the
government submitted Form 4340s for years 1999 to 2002, and Smith failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to the validity of assessments made for
those tax years. See Palmer v. I.R.S., 116 F.3d 1309, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997)
(Internal Revenue Service assessments for unpaid taxes entitled to presumption of
correctness unless taxpayer submits competent evidence that the assessments were
“arbitrary, excessive, or without foundation”); Hughes, 953 F.2d at 535 (official
certificates, such as a Form 4340, can constitute proof of the fact that assessments
were actually and properly made); see also Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137,
138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (taxpayers’ conclusory, self-serving affidavit did
not raise a triable dispute so as to undermine the validity of representations in a
Form 4340).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motions to
proceed in forma pauperis and to strike the government’s evidence. See Defenders
of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (identifying the
standard of review for evidentiary rulings and requiring a showing of prejudice for
reversal); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616-17 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth
the standard of review for a denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis).
2 12-16801
We reject Smith’s contentions concerning the government’s authority to
bring this action, the district court’s denial of his request to allow a non-attorney to
represent him, its denial of any relief requested in his “Offer of Proof,” its
exclusion of his untimely expert reports, and alleged judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16801