
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudra SABARATNAM, Defendant-Appellant, and Mufthiha Sabaratnam, Defendant.
    No. 15-56463
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 20, 2017
    
      Valerie Larissa Makarewicz, Charles Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Regina S. Moriarty, Attorney, Joan I. Oppenheimer, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Rudra Sabaratnam, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.' R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rudra Sabaratnam appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the United States in its action to reduce to judgment Sabaratnam’s tax liabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Baccei v. United States, 682 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Sabaratnam’s trust fund penalties for tax year 2000 because Sabaratnam failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the assessments of these penalties were untimely. See 26 U.S.C. § 6601(a) (Internal Revenue Service must assess a tax liability within three years after a return is filed); id. at § 6672(b)(3)(B) (where a protest to a notice informing taxpayer of penalties is made, the statute of limitations is extended until 30 days after the final administrative determination with respect to that protest); FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Sabaratnam’s remaining contentions.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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