T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doct r i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### F e b r u ary23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

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, N o. 06- 6178 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) LAV I NA ELI ZAB ETH B EST,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No. CR- 0 6 - 1 5 - T)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , BA LD OCK , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. L avi na El i zabe t h B es tpl eade d gui l t ybefor e a magi s t r at e j udge t o unl aw ful e n tr yto a m ilita ry in s ta lla tio n , s ee 18 U . S. C . § 1382. She w as s ent ence d t o 60 day s ’ i m pr i s onm entand a $10. 00 as s es s m ent . She now appea l s , ar gui ng t hatt he m agis t rat e j ud ge h ad n o jur i sdi ct i on ov er hercase becau se docu m ents i n the case w er e notfi l ed pr oper l y , s o t he ca s e w as not“off i ci al l yopen[e d] . ” A pl t . B r . at8. T h e h ist o ryo f th is case is un rem ark ab le. M s. B est ad m it ted to m il it ary aut hor i t i es t hats he had know i ngl yvi ol at ed a w r i t t en or derfr om t he comm ander-2-

of T i nker A i r For ce B as e t o s t ay off t he bas e. I n vi ew of hercr i m i nal hi s t or yand drug pr obl ems, t he magi s t r at e j udge s ent ence d hert o 60 day s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . She g a v e o ra l n o tice o f

a p p e a l. A ft er the m agis t rat e j ud ge fil ed an O rderand N oti ce of A pp eal , M s. B est appar ent l ydi s cover ed t hatt he pl eadi ngs i n t hi s cas e, i ncl udi ng t he cha r gi ng document , had notbeen f i l ed w i t h t he cl er k of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he W es t er n D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma or r ecor ded i n t he cour t ’ s C M / E C F sy s t em befor e t he fi l i ng of the O r derand N ot i ce. M s . B es tar gued i n di s t r i ctcour tt hat t hi s fi l i ng fai l ur e depr i ved t he magi s t r at e j udge of j ur i s di ct i on overhercas e. T he d istric t co u rt rejec ted th e a rg u m e n t. M s. B e st’s c laim is th a t a c o u rt lac k s ju risd ictio n o v e r a c rim in a l ca se in w h ich c ri ti ca l do cu m en ts are n o t fi led c o rrectl y . M s. B est h as n o t, h o w ev er, present ed an yauthori t y— st at ute, rul e, or j ud i ci al decis i on — t hat hercase document s w er e notpr oper l yfi l ed. A l l s he ci t es ar e i nappos i t e rul es of p ro c e d u re . F o r e x a m p le, s h e c ites F e d . R . C rim . P . R u le 3 2 (k )(1 ), w h ich re a d s in f u ll: I n t he j udgm entof convi ct i on, t he cour tm us ts etfor t h t he pl ea, t he j ur yver di ctort he cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs , t he adj udi cat i on, and t he s ent ence . I f t he defendanti s found notgui l t yori s ot herw i s e ent i t l ed t o be di s char ged, t he cour tm us ts o or der . T he j udge musts i gn t he ju d g m e n t, an d th e c ler k m u st e n ter it. E ven i f t hi s rul e w er e vi ol at ed, t he rul e’ s exhor t at i ons do noti m pl yt he r emedy M s . B es ts eeks . T he corr ectcour s e of a ct i on w hen a j udgm enthas notbeen-3-

s i gned orent er ed i s s i m pl yt o s i gn orent eri tw hen the courtnot i ces t he omi s s i on, orw hen t he defendantoranotherpar t yobj ect s t o i t . W e ar e notas ked t o deci de w het herM s . B es tcoul d l aw ful l ybe i m pr i s oned befor e s uch a j udgm enti s s i gned orent er ed; w e ar e as ked i ns t ead t o vacat e a n a lle g e d ly u n file d ju d g m e n t. Si m i l ar l y , M s . B es tdoes notexpl ai n w hyal l eged vi ol at i ons of t he E CFP ol i ci es & P ro c e d u re s Ma n u a l o r F ed . R . C ri m P . 5 5 req u ir e v a c a tio n o f a ju d g m e n t. N orhas M s . B es tes t abl i s hed thats he w as pr ej udi ced byt he fa i l ur es s he al l eges . A tt he end of herbr i ef s he s ugges t s t hatherr i ghtt o a publ i c tr i al under the S ixth A m en d m en t and h er d u e-p roc ess righ ts un d er the F ift h A m en d m en t w ere vi ol at ed, buts he does nots uppor tt he s ugges t i ons w i t h author i t yorar gum ent , and t heyapp ear m eri t l ess. M o re o v e r, M s. B e st o ffe rs n o a rg u m e n t w h yfa ilu re to file th e d o c u m e n ts w o u ld b e a juri sd ict ion al de fe ct. T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as li m it ed the term j ur is di ct i on t o encompas s onl yques t i ons i nvol vi ng t he s ubj ectm at t erorcl as s of p e rs o n s s u bje c t to a c o u rt ’s ru lin g s . See Eber har tv. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 2 6 S . C t. 403, 405 ( 2005) ( “‘ C l ar i t yw oul d be fa ci l i t at ed, ’ w e have s ai d, ‘ i f cour t s and l i t i gant s us ed t he l abel ‘ j ur i s di ct i onal ’ notforcl ai m - pr oces s i ng rul es , butonl yfor pr es cr i pt i ons del i neat i ng t he cl as s es of ca s es ( s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on) and the p e rs o n s (p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n ) fa llin g w ith in a c o u rt ’s a dju d ic a to ry a u th o ri ty.” ( quot i ng Kont r i ck v . Ryan , 540 U . S. 443, 455 ( 2004) ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e s ee no j ur i s di ct i onal defe cti n t hi s cas e.-4-

W e A F F IR M th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge