* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without o ral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court ge nerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 4 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, a fictitious plaintiff, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DENNIS LEON SMITH, a Colorado state citizen, a creation of nature and of nature’s God, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-1271 D.C. No. 02-CR-187-Z (D. Colorado)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
Dennis Leon Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the d istrict court’s order remanding this removed case to state court. We con clude that review of the-2-

remand order is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) and d ismiss the appeal. Although the removal notice is not included in the record on appeal, it appears from the district court order that Mr. Smith filed a pro se notice of removal in which he attempted to remove a state cou rt criminal prosecution involving four traffic offenses. It further appear s that Mr. Smith did not cite to any federal statute in his notice as the basis for removal. The district court stated that only 28 U.S.C. § 1443 appeared relevant and co ncluded that Mr. Smith had failed to meet the prerequisites for removal under that provision. After the court denied Mr. Smith’s motion for reconsideration, Mr. Smith filed this appeal. Section 1447 provides that An order remanding a case to the State court from w hich it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, e xcept that an order remanding a case to the State court from whic h it was removed pursuant to section 1443 of this title shall be rev iewable by appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. §1447(d). Although section 1447(d) permi ts the appeal of an order remanding a case removed “pursuant to section 1443, ” in this case, as recited by the district court, Mr. Smith did not remove the ca se pursuant to section 1443; indeed he did not cite any federal statute as autho rity for the removal. Even if we were to construe Mr. Smith’s attempt to remove as one made pursuant to section 1443, we would agree with the d istrict court that he has failed to establish the prerequisites for removal under th at provision. Section 14431 Section 1443 provides in full: Any of the following civil actions or criminal pros ecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the de fendant to the district court of the United States for the distric t and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) Against any person who is denied or cannot e nforce in the courts of such State a right under any law prov iding for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United St ates, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof; (2) For any act under color of authority derivedfrom any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with su ch law. 28 U.S.C. § 1443. -3- authorizes the removal of civil and criminal cases involving laws providing for equal civil rights. Under subsection (1) a state c ourt defendant may remove an action if he shows he is being denied or cannot enf orce in state court “a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of” citizens or people within the jurisdiction of the United States, while under subs ection (2) a defendant may remove an action based on acts “under color of auth ority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 1 The “law providing for the equal civil rights” referred to in subsection ( 1) must arise under a federal statute providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. See Johnson v. Mississippi , 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). The first part of subs ection (2) applies only to federal officers, and the second part applies only to state officers. See City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824, 824 n.22 (1966).-4-

Mr. Smith has made no showing that he is either a s tate or a federal officer for purposes of subsection (2). Moreover, the reco rd contains no indication that Mr. Smith claims he is being denied or cannot enfor ce a right under a statute relating specifically to racial equality. “Claims that prosecution and conviction will violate rights under constitutional or statuto ry provisions of general applicability or under statutes not protecting agai nst racial discrimination, will not suffice.” Johnson , 421 U.S. at 219. Although Mr. Smith’s brief on appeal is virtually unintelligible, careful scrutiny does notreveal any reference that could be construed to invoke a statute specifically direc ted to racial equality. Mr. Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and the appeal is
DISMISSED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge