
    Dee W. STOTTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-73940.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2015.
    Dee W. Stotts, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Carol Barthel, Esquire, Francesca Ugol-ini, U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dee W. Stotts appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding income tax deficiencies and penalties for tax years 2007 and 2008. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We affirm.

We reject Stotts’s contention that he was denied the opportunity to present documents in the Tax Court, which is Stotts’s sole basis for challenging the Tax Court’s deficiency determination. The record reflects that following a hearing, the Commissioner filed a motion for entry of decision, and that Stotts failed to respond. The Tax Court then issued an order to show cause why it should not enter a decision, and Stotts again failed to respond. On appeal, Stotts fails to provide any explanation for his failure to respond.

The Commissioner’s motion to strike, filed on June 13, 2014, is granted.

Stotts’s requests that this court consider his newly filed evidence on appeal, set forth in his opposition and reply to the Commissioner’s motion to strike, are denied.

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