United States v. Sally Cobb
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sally Dawn COBB, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Stephen S. Trott (author), Gould, Johnnie B. Rawlinson
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-56479 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00997-IEG-RBB v. MEMORANDUM * SALLY DAWN COBB, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2011 ** Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Sally Dawn Cobb appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the government’s petition to enforce summonses against her in connection with an investigation into income tax liabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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). § 1291. We review for clear error, Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1995), and we affirm.
The district court did not commit clear error by granting the petition because Cobb failed to rebut the government’s showing that the summonses were issued in good faith. See id. at 119-20 (discussing the burden for rebutting the government’s showing of good faith).
Cobb’s contention that she is not subject to the Internal Revenue Code is unpersuasive. See 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a)(2) (permitting government to summons any “person”); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that a citizen is not subject to federal taxes).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-56479