P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40297 Su m m ar y Cal endar ROBERT L OUI S S AL TE R, J R Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. W ARDEN P AUL KAS TNER R espon ded

- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 06- C V
- 199 B e fo r e W IE N E R , S T E W A R T , a n dC L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Robe r tL o ui s Sal t e r , Jr . , fe de r alpr i s o ne r# 064 89
- 01 0, se e ks t o appe alt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f hi s a c t i o n t hathe c har ac t e r i z e d a s a n i nde pe nde nt act i on i n equ i t y. Salter w a s co n vi ct ed i n t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof A rkan sas of p o s s e s s io n o f a m a c h in e g u n a n dfa il u r e to a p p e a rb e fo r e th e c o u r t . S a lt e r ’s c o n v ic tio n w a s a ffir m e do n d ir e c t a p p e a l t o t h e E ig h th C ir c u it. Uni t e d St at e s v. S alt er , 4 1 8 F .3d 8 6 0 , 8 6 3 (8t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40297

2 O n ap p ea l t o t h is cou rt, S a l ter ar gu ed tha t it w a s i m p oss ib l e for h i m to c om pl y w i t h t he regi st r at i on and t axi ng r equi r em ent s f orm ac hi neguns and t hat hi s g ui l t y pl e a w as nul l i f i e d b y t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw he n i ta l l o w e d t he G overnm en t t o w i t h draw t h e pl ea agreem en t . H e al so argued t h at th e di st ri ct cou rt erred bydism i ssingh i s a cti on b eca u se h e sa ti sfi ed th e es sen ti a lelem en ts form a in ta in in ga n in d e p e n d e n t a ctio n ineq u ity . In asu p p lem e n ta l l e tte r b rie f, S al t era ddit i o nally as s e r t e d t hathi s po s s e s s i o n o f am ac hi ne gunc o nvi c t i on s ho ul d be set as i de b e c aus e o f t he r e c e ntSupr e m e Cour tde c i s i o n D i st ri ctof Col u m bi a v. Hel ler , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 7 8 3 (2 0 0 8 ). O n e of th e e ss e n t i alel em en t s of an i n dep en den tact i on i n equ i t y i s a s h o w in go f th e a b s e n c e o f a n ya d e q u a te re m e d ya t la w . B an kers Mortgage Co. v . U. S. , 423 F . 2d73, 79 ( 5th C i r. 197 0) . T h e S u prem e C ou rtha s f u rt h er noted t hatan i ndependentac t i on i n equi t y sho ul d be avail abl e onl y t o pr eve nta g r ave m is c a r r ia g e o f ju s tic e . Un itedS ta tes v. B egger ly , 5 2 4 U .S . 3 8 , 4 5 (1 9 9 8 ). S a lt e r ’s a c tio n d idn o t m e e t t h e s e d e m a n d in gs ta n d a r d s . B ecau se Salt er’ s act i on w as n ot f i l ed in t h e federaldi st ri ctcourti n w h i ch h e w as c onvi c t ed and se nt enc ed, t he di st r i c t c our t di d not have j uri sdi c t i on to a lte r n a tiv e lytr e a t h is a c tio n a s am o tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . SeePack v . Y o u s uff , 2 1 8 F. 3 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 1 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . Be c a us e Sa l t e r d i d no t a s s er tt hat h e w as convi ct ed of

an of fen se t h at i s non exi st e n t a s to a l lpersons, hi s act i on al s o di d no tm e e tt he e s s e nt i alc r i t e r i a o f ac l ai m und e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 24 1 m ad e in c o nju n c tio n w ith th e s a v in g s cla u s e o f § 2 2 5 5 (e ). S ee R eyes - R equ enav. Un i t ed S t ate s , 2 4 3 F .3 d8 9 3 , 9 0 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Sal t ert her ef

or e f i l ed an unaut hor i ze d ac t i on w hi c h t he di st r i c tc our tw as w ith o u t ju r is d ic tio n to e n te r ta in . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ea rly , 27 F. 3d 140, 142 ( 5th C i r. 199 4) . Salt er has t h u s app eal ed f rom t h e di sm i ssalof a m ean i n gl ess, u n a u th o r iz e da c tio n . I d. W e af

f i rm on the basis th at th e di st ri ctcourtl acked ju r is d ic tio n . I

d. AF F I RMED.