Donald Leif Rokke, Petitioner-appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee, 2 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1993)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Rokke did not prevail on his underlying tax court case and appealed to this court in Cause No. 91-70722. On June 1, 1992, after all appellate briefs had been filed, he filed a motion to supplement the record. He wanted to add four documents: a "Reply to Answer Amendment," a motion to vacate the bench opinion, a letter he received from the tax court clerk, and a motion for leave to file motion to vacate the bench opinion. The tax court denied the motion.

Rokke argues that the these "critical" documents are necessary to complete the record and ensure efficient appellate review. He is wrong. We review the tax court's denial of a motion to supplement the record for abuse of discretion. Samuels v. Wilder, 871 F.2d 1346, 1354 (7th Cir. 1989); Bergerco, U.S.A. v. Shipping Corp. of India, Ltd., 896 F.2d 1210, 1214 (9th Cir. 1990).

Fed. R. App. P. 10(e) applies where a difference of opinion arises over what occurred in the trial court. It allows the trial or appellate court to make the record "conform to the truth."

We find that the truth of what occurred in the tax court will not be better reflected by supplementing the record. Rokke already has burdened the record with irrelevant exhibits and unfounded arguments in an otherwise meritless case. The four documents would have no effect on its disposition.

AFFIRMED.