[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
No. 09-10763 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00085-MC-T-17-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner-Counter-
Defendant-Appellee,
versus
JAMES B. THORNBERRY,
Respondent-Counter-
Claimant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 9, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James B. Thornberry appeals the district court’s orders compelling him to
comply with an Internal Revenue Service summons and finding him in contempt
for not complying with that order. He makes a variety of contentions, all of which
are meritless. The district court’s order compelling Thornberry to comply with the
summons adopted the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned report and
recommendation, and we affirm that order for the reasons stated in the report and
recommendation.1
We add the two points. First, Thornberry’s challenge to the district court’s
contempt order is moot because Thornberry purged himself of the contempt by
complying with the district court’s underlying order. See In re Grand Jury
Subpoena Duce Tecum, 91-02922, 955 F.2d 670, 672 (11th Cir. 1992). Second, to
the extent that Thornberry makes additional arguments on appeal, we need not
address them because he did not raise them before the district court. See, e.g.,
Tech. Coating Applicators, Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 157
F.3d 843, 846 (11th Cir.1998) (declining to consider an argument on appeal
because the district court did not have an opportunity to address it).
1
Although Thornberry filed his appeal of the district court’s order compelling him to
comply with the IRS’s summons more than thirty days after the order was entered, we
nonetheless have jurisdiction because the district court did not set out its judgment as a separate
document, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. As a result, Thornberry had 150
days from date when the final order was entered in the civil docket to file his notice of appeal.
See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 58(c)(2)(B); Big Top Koolers, Inc. v. Circus-Man Snacks, Inc., 528 F.3d
839, 843 (11th Cir. 2008). He met that deadline.
2
AFFIRMED.
3