
    UNITED STATES of America; Jon Sustarich, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mark OTTOVICH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-17326.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    John A. Nolet, Kenneth Greene, Esquire, Supervisory, Robert William Met-zler, Supervisory, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Thomas M. Newman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Mark Ottovich, Fremont, CA, pro se.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark Ottovich appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the government’s petition to enforce a summons against him in connection with an investigation into income tax liabilities of his mother’s estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error. United States v. Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by granting the petition because Ottovich failed to rebut the government’s showing that the summons was issued in good faith. See Stewart v. United States, 511 F.3d 1251, 1254-55 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining taxpayer’s “heavy” burden to show an abuse of process or lack of good faith once government makes prima facie showing that the summons was issued in good faith); Crystal v. United States, 172 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir.1999) (“The government’s burden is a slight one, and may be satisfied by a declaration from the investigating agent[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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