*1 Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Lowell Baisden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment modifying a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 barring Baisden from promoting an abusive tax scheme. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions, for clear error its factual findings, and *2 for an abuse of discretion its decision to grant a permanent injunction and the scope of the injunction. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung , 710 F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the permanent injunction, as modified, because the injunction “state[s] its terms specifically” and “describe[s] in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1); United States v. Kapp , 564 F.3d 1103, 1114 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding against a vagueness and overbreadth challenge an injunction prohibiting a defendant from preparing tax returns claiming a specified tax deduction).

We reject as meritless Baisden’s contentions that the injunction punishes past conduct and violates his First Amendment rights. See United States v. Estate Pres. Servs. , 202 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding against a First Amendment challenge a 26 U.S.C. § 7408 injunction because it “proscribes only fraudulent conduct” and defendants “may continue to publish legitimate tax planning advice”).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-15023

[*] 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).