
    Bradley Warren PUGH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-70565.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
    Bradley Warren Pugh, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Robert Joel Branman, I, Esquire, John A. Dieicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
    Before: LEAYY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bradley Warren Pugh appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment in Pugh’s action challenging a federal tax lien. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo, Gladden v. Comm’r, 262 F.3d 851, 853 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because Pugh failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had paid his outstanding tax penalties, which were imposed after he filed a frivolous tax return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6702 (imposing penalties for filing frivolous tax returns); Parkinson v. Comm’r, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir.1981) (per cu-riam) (stating summary judgment standard under Tax Court Rule 121(d), which is derived from Fed.R.Civ.P. 56).

We reject as without merit Pugh’s contentions that the Tax Court failed to create a proper record, expressed bias in favor of the Commissioner, and committed other procedural errors.

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