
    Vince FLAHERTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-71336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    Vince Flaherty, Pacific Palisades, CA, pro se.
    Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John Schumann, John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department Of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, U.S. Tax Court, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, 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

Vince Flaherty appeals pro se from Tax Court’s decision dismissing for failure to prosecute his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination to collect by levy unpaid federal income taxes for 1996. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion, Noli v. Comm’r 860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Flaherty’s petition for failure to prosecute given Flaherty’s failure to appear for trial and his history of delay, especially since it had already granted two trial continuances and Flaherty had been warned multiple times that his case could be dismissed. See id. (noting “dismissal for failure properly to prosecute will normally arise where a party fails to appear at trial”); see also T.C.R. 123(a), (b) (Tax Court may dismiss a case and enter a decision against a petitioner where the petitioner fails properly to prosecute or fails to proceed as required by the Tax Court).

Flaherty’s contention that the dismissal of his petition violated his due process rights and his right to trial is unpersuasive.

We grant Flaherty’s motion to file a substitute reply, and instruct the Clerk to file the reply brief submitted on March 19, 2013.

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