ORDER FINDING RESPONDENT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF ORDERS FILED DECEMBER 12, 2012, AND MAY 14, 2013

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

1. This matter came before me on June 17, 2013, under the Contempt Order to Show Cause filed May 14, 2013. Assistant United States Attorney Yoshinori H. T. Himel and investigating Revenue Officer Antonio Enciso were present. Respondent did not file opposition to contempt and did not appear at the show-cause hearing. Based upon the entire record and oral proceedings, I make the following findings:

2. By Order filed December 12, 2012, I enforced an IRS summons issued July 27, 2012, directed to the respondent, Keith E. Guy, and seeking testimony, books, checks, records, papers and other data to aid RO Lopez' investigation to determine financial information relevant to the IRS' efforts to collect Form 1040 delinquent taxes for the tax years ending December 31, 2004, December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2011. I ordered respondent to meet with the investigating Revenue Officer on the 21st day after issuance of the Order, or at a time and date to be set in writing by the Revenue Officer, or at the agreed time of December 31, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., and to produce all testimony, books, records, and other data demanded by the IRS summons issued July 27, 2012.

3. On December 4. 2012, the Revenue Officer wrote the respondent confirming the compliance date of December 31, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., in the Fresno IRS Office, as agreed by respondent.

4. The respondent appeared but failed to bring any of the documents demanded by the IRS Summons.

5. On January 11, 2013, Assistant U.S. Attorney Yoshinori H. T. Himel wrote to Respondent setting a further opportunity for compliance for January 24, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the Fresno IRS Office.

6. The respondent telephoned Revenue Officer Lopez and told him he doesn't have any of the requested "tax forms" and would not be appearing.

7. The respondent failed to appear for the appointment.

8. On May 13, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Contempt of Order Filed December 12, 2012. This Court's Order filed May 14, 2013, required respondent to appear before this Court on June 17, 2013, at 8:15 a.m., and show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Order filed December 12, 2012. This order further set a date certain for a written response by the respondent. This order was duly served by mail on the respondent.

9. Respondent failed to file a written response, and failed to appear at the hearing.

10. Respondent's failure to comply with the Orders filed December 12, 2012 and May 14, 2013, continues to the present.

11. "A court has the inherent power to punish for civil or criminal contempt any obstruction Of justice relating to any judicial proceeding." Lambert v. Montana, 545 F.2d 87, 88 (9th Cir. 1976). Petitioner has the burden of proving its prima facie case by clear and convincing proof. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. Of Corrs., 869 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1989).

12. By the Petition for Contempt and supporting documents, including the declaration of David M. Lopez, Petitioner has met this burden.

13. Based upon the foregoing, I find, order and adjudge as follows:

14. It is SO ORDERED.