
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald James DAVENPORT, individually and as a marital community, Defendant-Appellant, and Jennifer J. Davenport, individually and as a marital community; et al., Defendants.
    No. 10-35506.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 5, 2012.
    Karen G. Gregory, Esquire, William Carl Hankla, Michael P. Hatzimichalis, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washin-gon, DC, Rolf Harry Tangvald, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ronald James Davenport, Chewelah, WA, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronald James Davenport appeals pro se from the district court’s default judgment in the United States’ action to reduce to judgment unpaid federal income tax assessments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Stars’ Desert Inn Hotel & Country Club, Inc. v. Hwang, 105 F.3d 521, 524 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a default judgment against Davenport as a sanction after Davenport repeatedly refused to submit to any discovery despite being compelled by the court to do so and warned that failure to comply could lead to an entry of default judgment. See id. (discussing factors for district court to consider before entering default judgment as a sanction); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vi) (permitting default judgment as a sanction for failing to comply with a discovery order).

Davenport’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Davenport’s motion entitled “Complaint on Claim for Common Law Immunity Joined with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” filed on July 12, 2010, is denied.

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