[PROPOSED] ORDER FINDING RESPONDENT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF ORDER FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2012 and November 8, 2012

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

This matter came before me on December 3, 2012, under the Contempt Order to Show Cause filed November 8, 2012. Assistant United States Attorney Yoshinori H.T. Himel and investigating Revenue Officer Lorena Ramos were present. Respondent did not file opposition to contempt and did not appear at the show-cause hearing. Based upon the entire record and the oral proceedings, I make the following findings:

(1) On September 21, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition to enforce an IRS summons issued January 13, 2011, directed to the respondent, Norman D. Bishop, and seeking testimony, books, records, papers, and other data to aid RO Ramos' investigation to determine financial information relevant to the IRS's efforts to collect Employer's Federal Quarterly Tax (Form 941) for the tax periods ending March 31, 2008, June 30, 2008, September 30, 2008, December 31, 2008, March 31, 2008, and June 30, 2009; as well as Employer Annual Federal Unemployment Tax (Form 940) for the tax year ending December 31, 2008, assessed against Norman D. Bishop and relating to his business, Clovis Ace Hardware.

(2) By Order filed February 8, 2012,1 enforced the IRS summons and ordered respondent to meet with the investigating Revenue Officer within 21 days after issuance of the Order, or at a later date to be set by the Revenue Officer, and to produce all testimony, books, records, and other data demanded by the IRS summons issued January 13, 2011.

(3) On February 23, 2012, the Revenue Officer wrote the respondent setting the compliance date for March 5, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., at 2525 Capitol Street, Suite 206, Fresno, California.

(4) The respondent did not appear, and he failed to provide the testimony and documents demanded in the enforced summons.

(5) On April 12, 2012, government counsel mailed a letter to respondent reminding him of the need to provide the required documentation to comply with the summons enforcement order. The letter set a compliance appointment for May 1, 2012, and warned of a contempt petition if respondent did not comply.

(6) The respondent again did not appear, and he failed to provide the testimony and documents demanded in the enforced summons.

(7) On November 8, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Contempt of Order filed February 8, 2012. This Court's Order, filed November 8, 2012, required the respondent to appear before this Court on December 3, 2012, at 8:00 a.m., and show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Order filed February 8, 2012. This order further set a date certain for a written response.by the respondent. This order was duly served by mail upon the respondent.

(8) Respondent failed to file written response, and failed to appear at the hearing.

(9) Respondent's failure to comply with the Order filed February 8, 2012, continues to the present.

(10) "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).

(11) By the Petition for Contempt and supporting documents, including the declaration of Lorena Ramos, Petitioner has met this burden.

Based upon the foregoing, I find as follows:

It is SO ORDERED.