
    Robert TALBOT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-70826
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 28, 2017
    Peter Gibbons, Law Office of Gibbons & Associates, Carson City, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Robert Talbot, Pro Se
    Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory Attorney, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Talbot appeals from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, permitting the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to proceed with an action to collect Talbot’s federal income tax liability for tax years 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo conclusions of law and for clear error questions of fact. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly determined that the Commissioner sent a final notice of deficiency to Talbot’s last known address for each tax year in question. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212(b)(1) (a notice of deficiency addressed to the taxpayer’s last known address suffices for purposes of notice); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that Postal Form 3877 is highly probative and is sufficient, in the absence of contrary evidence, to show that the notice of deficiency was properly made).

We reject as unsupported by the record Talbot’s contention that the Tax Court failed to consider his testimony.

We do not consider issues that were not raised in the opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

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