USA V. LOWELL BAISDEN, No. 15-15023 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-15023 D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01368-AWI-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* LOWELL BAISDEN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Lowell Baisden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment modifying a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 barring Baisden from promoting an abusive tax scheme. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions, for clear error its factual findings, and * 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). for an abuse of discretion its decision to grant a permanent injunction and the scope of the injunction. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the permanent injunction, as modified, because the injunction “state[s] its terms specifically” and “describe[s] in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1); United States v. Kapp, 564 F.3d 1103, 1114 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding against a vagueness and overbreadth challenge an injunction prohibiting a defendant from preparing tax returns claiming a specified tax deduction). We reject as meritless Baisden’s contentions that the injunction punishes past conduct and violates his First Amendment rights. See United States v. Estate Pres. Servs., 202 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding against a First Amendment challenge a 26 U.S.C. § 7408 injunction because it “proscribes only fraudulent conduct” and defendants “may continue to publish legitimate tax planning advice”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15023
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
