
    Sivatharan NATKUNANATHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    No. 15-73334
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 25, 2017
    Sivatharan Natkunanathan, Pro Se
    Regina S. Moriarty, Attorney, Bruce R. Ellisen, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sivatharan Natkunanathan appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment allowing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) to proceed with its collection action on Natkunana-than’s outstanding federal tax liability for 2003. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Johnston v. Comm’r, 461 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in sustaining the proposed levy action for tax year 2003. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting forth matters an appeals officer must consider in making a determination to sustain a proposed levy action); 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (permitting challenge to the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability).

Contrary to Natkunanathan’s contentions, the Tax Court properly granted the Commissioner’s motion to permit a levy. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(e)(2) (suspension of the levy shall not apply if the underlying tax liability is not at issue in the appeal and the Tax Court determines that the Commissioner has shown good cause not to suspend the levy).

We reject as without merit Natkunana-than’s contentions concerning any pending appeals before the Supreme Court.

Natkunanathan’s motion (Docket Entry No. 56) is denied.

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