
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCON, INC., et al, Respondents-Intervenors-Appellants.
    No. 10-36108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 13, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 7, 2011.
    Jennifer Marie Rubin, Michael P. Hat-zimichalis, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Amy Schipper Howe, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Tim A. Tarter, Woolston & Tarter, PC, Phoenix, AZ, Paul L. Westberg, Westberg, McCabe & Collins, Boise, ID, for Respondents-Intervenors-Appellants.
    
      Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and COLLINS, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Taxpayers MarCon, Inc. and Elaine Martin appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to intervene in a summons enforcement action brought by the IRS against a third-party record keeper. We review the denial of a motion to intervene in enforcement proceedings de novo. S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 802 (9th Cir.2002).

The parties agree that our affirmance of the district court in MarCon, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-35464 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011), renders this action moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam) (“[A]n appeal should ... be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant[.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086-87 (9th Cir.2011) (A case is moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” of the litigation). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     