for validly placing a lien on Perez’s property. The district court’s order granting summary judgment to the government is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 1 .Perez does not challenge on appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government on the issues of (1) the IRS’s actions being time-barred by the statute of limitations and (2) the validity of the IRS’s levy on his wages. Therefore, Perez has waived these two issues. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.1998) (noting that "issues not briefed on appeal are waived"). 2 . Morris v. Covan Wor (5th Cir.1993) (recognizing the established rule that this court "must construe [a pro se plaintiff’s] allegations and briefs more permissively”). 14 . McCarty v. United States, 929 F.2d 1085, 1089 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 15 . See, e.g., In re Orr, 180 F.3d 656, 658
holding that form 4340 showing notice of assessment and demand for payment is admissible under the federal rules of evidence holding that form 4340 is probative evidence in and of itself and shows in the absence of contrary evidence that notices and assessments were properly made holding that form 4340 shows in the absence of contrary evidence that notices and assessments were properly made holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements