
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lowell BAISDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-15023
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed June 30, 2017
    Melissa Briggs, Attorney, Bruce R. Elli-sen, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Lowell Baisden, Pro Se
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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 Baisderis 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. 
      
       This disposition -is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     