NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

NOV 18 2021

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDMUND V. MANZANO, No. 20-73384

Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 17650-19 v.

MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Edmund V. Manzano appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision dismissing his petition for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Hongsermeier v. Comm’r, 621 F.3d 890, 899 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

*

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

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Tax Court properly dismissed Manzano’s petition for failure to state a claim because Manzano did not set forth a clear and concise argument of error, or any facts demonstrating error, in the Commissioner’s determination of his tax liability for the 2017 tax year. See Tax Ct. R. 34(b)(4) (explaining that a petition must contain “[c]lear and concise assignments of each and every error. . . committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency. . . [and]. . . [a]ny issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded”); Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal where a petitioner failed to present “any justiciable error in his petition for redetermination”).

Manzano’s motion to vacate the judgment (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-73384