*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-30245

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD A. SHERLOCK, ET AL.,

Defendants,

RICHARD A. SHERLOCK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-1867-K)

________________________________________________________________

December 18, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this tax protester case, Richard A. Sherlock objects on

multitudinous grounds to the district court’s reduction of his tax

liabilities to judgment. After a thorough review of the record and

a close study of the briefs, we conclude that Sherlock’s arguments

are all without merit.
 

1The record reveals that the government initially responded to

Sherlock’s discovery request for the authorization letters with a

claim of privilege. We note that it is a very questionable

litigation tactic to ever refuse to produce evidence of a necessary

prerequisite for jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in the instant case,

the letters were produced eventually, and well before the district

court ruled on its jurisdiction.

-2-

Sherlock’s principal complaint is that the district court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because of a

technical error on the part of the government. Specifically, he

argues that the government never presented evidence that the suit

had been properly authorized by a delegate of the Secretary of the

Treasury and a delegate of the Attorney General pursuant to 26

U.S.C. § 7401. Although such an error would indeed deprive the

district court of jurisdiction, the record is clear that the

government did produce the appropriate authorization letters,

albeit with some delay.1

Sherlock next contends that jurisdiction was lacking because

the government failed to produce Form 23C in proof of his tax

assessment. There is, however, no connection between Form 23C and

the district court’s jurisdiction. With regard to proof of the tax

assessment itself, this court has specifically held that Form 4340

is sufficient to establish a presumptively valid tax assessment.

United States v. McCallum, 970 F.2d 66, 71 (5th Cir. 1992). In

this case, the government produced Form 4340, so there is no merit

to this argument either.
-3-

Sherlock next argues that the district court erred by applying

a federal statute of limitations to the government’s claim instead

of the shorter Louisiana statute. This court has held, however,

that the United States is not bound by state statutes of

limitations in such cases, and that the federal statute applies.

United States v. Fernon, 640 F.2d 609, 612 (5th Cir. 1981).

Sherlock next argues that the district court clearly erred in

a number of its factual findings with regard to his ownership

interests in various property. The record, however, reveals the

district court’s findings to be well founded and Sherlock has

presented no specific arguments to the contrary. As such, the

district court’s findings regarding the property on which the

government may foreclose are not clearly erroneous.

Finally, Sherlock’s additional arguments that the district

court erred with respect to the res judicata effect of the

underlying Tax Court decision, that jurisdiction is lacking due to

the government’s failure to publish various information in the

Federal Register, and that the district court erred by proceeding

with this case after the bankruptcy court lifted its automatic stay

are entirely without legal foundation.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

A F F I R M E D.