Case: 17-13645 Date Filed: 11/01/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13645
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cv-80754-RLR
BMP FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
PRESLEY LAW AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 1, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13645 Date Filed: 11/01/2018 Page: 2 of 3
This case is a companion to, and is resolved by, Presley v. United States, 895
F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2018). In Presley, the plaintiffs—including current Plaintiffs-
Appellants BMP Family Limited Partnership (“BMP”) and Presley Law and
Associates, P.A. (“Presley Law”) 1—petitioned to quash summonses the Internal
Revenue Service (“IRS”) sent to a bank in the course of investigating the 2014
federal income-tax liabilities of BMP and Presley Law. 895 F.3d at 1287–88. The
IRS requested records pertaining to accounts over which the plaintiffs had signatory
authority. Id. In seeking to quash the summonses, the plaintiffs objected that some
of these records revealed their clients’ financial information. Id. at 1288. The
government moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the government’s
motion. Id.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal on two grounds. Id. at 1290. First, they
argued that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to demonstrate probable
cause because their clients had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records
held by the bank. Id. Second, they contended that the IRS was obligated to proceed
under 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f) by issuing John Doe summonses to their clients and
petitioning the district court for an ex parte hearing before obtaining plaintiffs’ bank-
account records. Id.
1
Presley included two additional plaintiffs who are not parties here: Michael Presley and
Cynthia Presley.
2
Case: 17-13645 Date Filed: 11/01/2018 Page: 3 of 3
Rejecting these arguments, we affirmed. We held that probable cause was not
required because the plaintiffs’ clients lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in
financial records held by the bank, that the IRS summonses were reasonable under
the Fourth Amendment, and that the procedures required by 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f) did
not apply. Id. at 1291–95. We therefore concluded that the IRS could enforce the
summonses.
Presley controls here. As BMP and Presley Law note in their brief, “[t]he
only notable difference between this matter and the companion case [Presley] is that
the summonses here seek to obtain records from December 31, 2014 through and
including January 1, 2016, which are dates different from the companion case.”
Appellants’ Br. at 3. In all other respects this case is identical to Presley. The same
plaintiffs, BMP and Presley Law, petitioned to quash IRS summonses requesting the
same kinds of financial records at issue in Presley. The district court dismissed the
action, and BMP and Presley Law now appeal the dismissal on the same grounds
that we addressed and rejected in Presley. Because the dates of the records at issue
do not affect the resolution of the legal issues, we affirm for the reasons explained
more fully in Presley.
AFFIRMED.
3