A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. J OH N S. W I LLI AM SON ; NA NC Y L. W I LLI AM SON ; GA RRETT J AM ES W I LLI AM SON ; DA VI D A ND REW W I LL I AM S ON; J OHN GREGORY W I L L I A MS O N ; D E B O R A H K R U H M,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . N o. 07- 2017 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 04 - 88 5 BB / W D S)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , M UR P HY and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

Th e Un i t e d S t a t e s b r o u g h ts u i ti n fe d e r a l c o u r tt o r e d u c e t h e fe d e r a l i n c o me t ax assessm ents of Joh n S . and N ancyL . W i l l i am son to j ud gm ent and t o fo recl ose fe d e r a l t a x l i e n s o n t wo p a r c e l s o f l a n d o wne d e i t h e rb yJ o h n S. a n d Nan c yL.T h e Wi l l i a ms o n s ’ s o n s , a p p e l l a n t s J o h n G. Wi l l i a ms o n , Da v i d A. 1 W il li am so n , an d G arrettJ. W il li am so n , alon g w ith Jo h n S . W il li am so n ’s si ster, appel l antD ebor ah K ruhm , w er e j oi ned as defe ndant s on t he gr ound t hatt hey m ig h t c la im a n in te re s t in th e p ro p e rt ie s in is s u e . -2- W i l l i a mso n, byt he i rs on s , G a r r e t t , D a vi d a nd J oh n G. , orbyJ oh n S. W il li am so n ’s si ster, D eb o rah K ruh m (co ll ec ti v elyh ere af ter “the W il li am so n s”). 1 T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the W i l l i amsons ’ count er cl ai m s and ent er ed part i al s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the U ni t ed St at es on t he unpai d as s es s m ent s and l i ens agai ns tone of the par cel s . A ft era tw o- dayt r i al t o t he courti n w hi ch the cour tdet er m i ned thatt he W i l l i amson s ons hel d t i t l e t o t he r eal pr oper t yas nom i nees of t hei rpar ent s , or , al t ernat i vel y , t hatt he pr oper t yhad bee n fr audul ent l yconvey ed, t he courtent er ed j udgm entfor ecl os i ng t he l i ens on t he ot herpar cel . T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o i m pos ed s anct i ons agai ns tt he W i l l i amsons underR ul e 11. T he W i l l i amsons fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , and the U ni t ed St at es has fi l ed a mot i on fors anct i ons i n t hi s cour tt o w hi ch the W i l l i amsons have r epl i ed. O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm entdo novo, appl y i ng t he s ame st andar d as t hatr el i ed on byt he d is tr ic t c o u rt . Kendr i ck v . P ens ke Tr ans p. Ser vs . , Inc. , 220 F. 3d 1220, 1225 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yi f ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues as t o anym at er i al fac tand the movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof law . F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). A s fo r th e find ing s at t ri al, w e re v iew the c o u rt ’s-3-

fi ndi ngs of fa ctforcl earerr or , Fed. R . C i v. P. 52( a) , and i t s concl us i ons of l aw de n o v o , G led h illv . S ta te B a n k(In re G led h ill ) , 1 6 4 F . 3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 0 (10 th C ir . 1999) . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i m pos i t i on of R ul e 11 s anct i ons foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Mas unaga v. St ol t enberg ( In r e Rex Mont is Si l verC o. ), 8 7 F . 3 d 4 3 5 , 4 3 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A ft erappl y i ng t he above s t andar ds of r evi ew , w e fi nd no err ori n t he deci s i ons of the di s t r i ctcour t . W e ther efor e affi r m al l of the var i ous or der s on appea l as w el l as t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j udgm entfors ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons s t at ed b yth a t c o u rt . T he W i l l i amsons ’ “N ot i ce of M ot i on and A ppel l ant s ’ M ot i on for Pr el i m i naryI nj unct i on” and a l l ot herout s t andi ng “not i ces ” and mot i ons h e re to fo re file d b yth e W illia m s o n s a re D E N IE D . T he U ni t ed St at es m oves fors anct i ons under28 U . S. C . § 1912 and R ul e 38 o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate P ro c e d u re , arg u in g th a t th e in sta n t ap p e a l is fr i vol ous . T he W i l l i amsons ’ r es pons e t o t he mot i on fors anct i ons s i m pl yr ehas hes t he di s cr edi t ed ar gum ent s i n t hei ropeni ng br i ef, i ncl udi ng t he as s er t i ons t hatt hey ar e not“s ubj ect s ” of the fe der al governm entbeca us e N ew M exi co does not “bel ong” t o t he U ni t ed St at es , t hatno s t atut e atl ar ge cr eat es s peci fi c l i abi l i t yfor i ncome t axes , t hatt he i ncome t ax i s uncons t i tut i onal , t hatt he or der s of the di s t r i ct cour tar e i nval i d beca us e theyl ack the s eal of the courtand the s i gnatur e of the c le rk , a n d th a t th e c a s e w a s n e v e r p ro p e rl yc o m m e n c e d .T he fi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons w er e i m pos ed af t ert he W i l l i amsons fi l ed thei rnot i ce 2 of appe al i n t hi s cas e. -4- T he U ni t ed St at es r eques t s s anct i ons i n t he amount of $8, 000, decl ar i ng underpenal t yof per

j ur yt hati texpends an ave r age of $11, 000 i n at t or neys al ar i es and othercos t s t o defe nd a fr i vol ous t ax appe al . T he U ni t ed St at es fur t hernot es t hata pr evi ous penal t yof $1, 500 di d notdet ert he W i l l i amsons fr om fi l i ng t he pr es entappea l . W e agr ee thatt he i ns t antact i on i s a fr i vol ous appea l des er vi ng penal t yand or dert he W i l l i amsons , j oi nt l yand s ever al l y , t o payt he l um p s um of $ 8 ,0 0 0 to th e U n ite d S ta te s . W e r emi nd J ohn S. W i l l i amson and N ancyL . W i l l i amson t hatt he fi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons i m pos ed bythi s cour ti n Wi l l i am s on v. Sena , N o . 0 6 - 2 1 0 3 , 2 0 0 7 WL 1 2 1 9 4 2 6 , a t * 2 (1 0 th C ir . A p ri l 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 ), a re s till i n e ffe c t a n d w ill b e e n fo rc e d . 2 T he j udgm entof the di s t r i ctcour ti s A FFIRM E D . T he mandat e s hal l i s s ue for t hw i t h. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge