Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02381/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duane L. Gallentine
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

{ 

FILED 

United St.ates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR O 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER -UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DUANE L. GALLENTINE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-2381 

(D.C. No. 87-20042-01) 

(District of Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS*, District 

Judge. 

Duane L. Gallentine was convicted in the District of Kansas 

of two counts of failure to make a tax return in violation of 26 

u.s.c. S 7203. He appeals his conviction, arguing that he was in 

fact convicted of an offense not charged in the indictment, and 

also that the trial judge erred in refusing to disqualify himself. 

We are not persuaded by either argument, and therefore vacate oral 

argument1 and affirm the judgment below. 

*The Honorable Layn R. Phillips, United States District Court for 

the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 87-2381 Document: 010110023913 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 1 
r 

Gallentine's conviction resulted from tax returns filed for 

1982 and 1983. Although Mr. Gallentine filed 10-40 forms for both 

years, he responded with the word ''object" in answer to questions 

regarding his wages and salary. Apparently Mr. Gallentine felt 

that reporting the amount of his wages and salary would compromise 

his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. 

On appeal, Mr. Gallentine claims that although he was 

indicted and convicted of failure to make a return, the offense he 

actually committed was failure to provide information required by 

the 10-40 form, also prohibited by section 7203. The argument is 

without merit. This court has repeatedly held that "purported 

returns which do not contain information from which the I.R.S. can 

assess the taxpayer's tax liability are not returns within the 

meaning of the Internal Revenue Code or the tax regulations." 

United States v. Stillhammer, 706 F.2d 1072, 1075 (10th Cir., 

1983); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir. 

1982); United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 

1980); United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 251 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 444 U.S. 917 (1979). 

Mr. Gallentine also argues that Judge O'Connor erred in 

refusing to disqualify himself under 28 u.s.c. § 455(a). Judge 

O'Connor had presided over a civil action in which Mr. Gallentine 

sued the I.R.S. to recover a five hundred dollar penalty that had 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2381 Document: 010110023913 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 2 
been assessed because of the deficient 1982 tax return. Judge 

O'Connor dismissed that action as frivolous, and awarded 

attorney's fees to the I.R.S. 

A trial judge's decision not to recuse himself will be 

reversed only if it rises to the level of an abuse of discretion. 

Varela v. Jones, 746 F.2d 1413, 1416 (10th Cir. 1984). We have 

held that "a motion to recuse cannot be based soley on adverse 

rulings." Willner v. University of Kansas, 848 F.2d 1023, 1028 

(10th Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 

934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 

1002-03 (11th Cir. 1981) ("[A] motion for recusal may not 

ordinarily be predicated upon the judge's rulings in the same or a 

related case. 11 )

2 Mr. Gallentine points to no specific factual 

support for his claim of the appearance of bias other than Judge 

O'Connor's previous decision. The judge's refusal to disqualify 

himself because of his prior ruling against Mr. Gallentine does 

not constitute an abuse of discretion. 

The judgment below is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

2 In a remarkably similar case, we have held that an adverse 

ruling in a tax protester's civil suit against the I.R.S. is 

insufficient grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 144 to disqualify a judge 

from presiding over that protester's criminal trial. See United 

States v. Irwin, 561 F.2d 198, 200 (10th Cir. 1977). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-2381 Document: 010110023913 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 3