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

### D e c e m b e r28,2006 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 W I L L I A M L O R D PU N C H A R D , R oy al D emocr at i c St at es of C ont i nent al (S u d a n ) A f

ric a G o v e rn m e n t, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. UN I TED STATES GO VER NM ENT; G E O R G E W . B U S H , P re sid e n t; STATE OF N EW M EXI CO ; BI LL R IC H A R D S O N , G o v ern o r; D E B B IE C L A R K , N ew M exi co C hi l dr en Pr ot ect i ve Y outh and Fami l i es Dep a r t me n t ; NEW M EXI CO STATE S I XTH J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT C O U R T ; G A R Y J E FFR I E S, J udge; U. S. DEPA RTM ENT O F S TATE; C O N D O L E E Z A R IC E , U . S . S ec retary o f S tate ; A D R IA N F L O R IS , S e rg e a n t; DEM I NG CI TY P OLI CE DEPA RTM ENT, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees.

_______________________________ W I L L I A M L O R D PU N C H A R D , R oy al D emocr at i c St at es of C ont i nent al (S u d a n ) A f

ric a G o v e rn m e n t, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. UNI T E D S T AT E S DE P AR T M E NT OF J US T I CE ; BU RE AU OF A L C O H O L , T O B A C C O , F I R E A R MS A N D E X P L O S I V E S ; C A R L W. N o. 05- 2222 ( D . N ew M exi co) ( D . C t . N o . C I V - 0 5 - 1 2 9 - J H / K B M)

N o. 06- 2076 ( D . N ew M exi co) ( D . Ct . N o. CI V - 05 - 13 0- J H / W D S)T hi sorderand j udgm enti snotbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrinesof * law o f th ec a se , res ju dicata an dc o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm ayb ec ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e r su a s iv ev a lu ec o n s i s te ntwithF e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e f f. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d1 0 thCir . R. 3 2 . 1 (ef f. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). B ecause P un chard ap pears pro se , w ec o n s tru eh is p le a din g slib e ra lly. Ledbetter 1 v . Cityo f T o p eka, Ka n ., 3 1 8 F .3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (1 0 thC ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

- 2- C A R R O L L , E xpl os i ve Pr ogr am C hi ef, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm 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 hi s cas e conc erns the cons ol i dat ed pro se ap p ea ls of W il li am L o rd P u n c h a rd c h a llen g in g th e d ism iss a l o f tw o se p a ra te la w su its. In h is first su it, 1 Punchar d fi l ed numer ous cl ai m s agai ns tt he Pr es i dentof the U ni t ed St at es , t he Secr et aryof St at e, the U ni t ed St at es G overnm ent , G overnorB i l l R i char ds on, t he St at e of N ew M exi co, D ebbi e C l ark, C hi l dr en, Y outh & Fam i l i es D epart m ent , t he- 3-

S ix th Ju d icia l D istric t C o u rt, D istric t Ju d g e G a ryJe ffe rie s, th e D e m in g C ity Pol i ce D epart m ent , and Sar gentA dr i an Fl or es al l ar i s i ng fr om the r emoval , byt he p o lic e d e p a rt m e n t, o f

tw o m in o rs f

ro m P u n c h a rd ’s a u to m o b ile (C a s e # 0 5 -2 2 2 2 ). Punchar d’ s s econd s ui tencompas s ed a numberof cl ai m s fi l ed aga i ns tthe Pr es i dentof the U ni t ed St at es , t he B ur eau of A l cohol , T obacc o, Fi r earm s and E x p l o s i v e s ( A T F ) a n d A T F A r s o n a n d E x p l o s i v e s P r o g r a m C h i e f C a r s o n W. C a rro ll, a ll aris in g f

ro m th e d e n ial o f

h is a p p lica tio n to th e A T F fo r a p e rm it t o pur chas e expl os i ves ( C as e # 06- 2076) . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , w e A F F I R M. D i s cus s i on T h is is n o t o u r fir s t in tr o d u c tio n to P u n c h a rd ’s le g a l c o m p la in ts . See P unchar d v. New Mexi co , 9 5 6 F .2 d 2 7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (u n p u b lish e d ); P un cha rd v. New Mexi co , 6 9 F .3 d 5 4 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (u n p u b lish e d ); P unchar d v. Luna C o u n ty C o m m ’n , 1 1 6 F .3 d 4 8 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (u n p u b lish e d ); P unchar d v. Luna C o u n ty C o m m ’n , 202 F. 3d 282 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( unpubl i s hed) . I n pr evi ous fi l i ngs w i th the di s tr i ctcourtand thi s C our t , Punchar d has des cr i bed hi m s el f as the hea dof- s t at e of a non- exi s t entR oy al D emocr at i c St at es of C ont i nent al ( Sudan) A fr i ca G overnm ent . A s w e have done befor e, w e di s r egar d anyr efe r ence orar gum ent P u n c h a rd m a k e s th a t d e p e n d s o n th a t a lle g e d e n tity’s e x is te n c e . See Punchar d v. New Mexi co , 56 Fed. A ppx. 443, 444 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( unpubl i s hed) ; and P u n c h a rdv . Th e Un itedS ta tes B u re a u o f L a n dM

g m t. , 180 Fed. A ppx. 817, 818Since thi scas e involved s everalfederal , s tate and l ocalgovernm ententiti es 2 including named parti es , w e havegrouped allof the fe deraldefendantstogether( federal d e f e n d ants), a ll o f

th estate d e f

e n d ants to g e th e r (s tate d e f e n d ants) an dth eD e m in gC ity P o lic eD ep artm e nt d e f

e n d ants to g e th e r ( D e m in gC ity P o lic e ).

- 4- (1 0 th C ir .) ( u n p u b lis h e d ), cer t . deni ed , — S .C t. — , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 0 3 7 6 5 4 (2 0 0 6 ). A d d iti o n a lly , w e n o te th a t P u n c h a rd ’s p ro p o sitio n s in b o th a p p e a ls a re d ifficu lt t o u n d e rsta n d a n d a re n o t su p p o rte d b yc o g e n t ar g u m e n ts o r le g a l au th o rity . W e w ill n o t “m a n u fa c tu re a p a rty ’s a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l w h e n it h a s fa iled in its b u rd e n to dr aw att ent i on t o the err orbel ow . ” Nat ’ lC om m odi t y & B ar t erA s s oc. v. G i bbs , 8 8 6 F .2 d 1 2 4 0 , 1 2 4 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). 1. J ur i s di ct i on on A ppeal C as e # 05- 2222, C i vi lC ompl ai nts A gai ns tFeder al, Stat e and Local E nt i t i es 2 Punchar d i ni t i al l yappea l ed fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s J une 23, 2005 or der g ran ti n g the fed era l defen d an ts’ m o ti o n to d ism iss. In it s o rde r, the d istri ct co u rt d e ter m in e d (1 ) P u n c h a rd ’s c o m p lain t an d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w a s u n in tellig ib le a n d d id n o t co m p lyw ith R u le 8 (a ); (2 ) h e fa iled to sta te a c laim p u rsu a n t to R u le 12( b) ( 6) agai ns tanyof the named fede r al defe ndant s ; and ( 3) he di d notal l ege an yg rou n d s fo r w aive r of so v ere ign im m u n ity . A t th at t im e, th e d istri ct co u rt had notadj udi cat ed the r emai ni ng cl ai m s agai ns ts ever al s t at e defendant s and the D e m in g C ity P o lic e . T h u s , th e J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 d e c is io n w a s n o t a fin a l o rd e r. O n D ec em b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted th e D em ing C ityP o li ce ’s- 5-

m ot i on t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . A nd on M ar ch 30, 2006, the di s tr i ct c o u rt g ra n ted th e sta te d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss fo r th e sa m e re a so n s it di s m i s s ed the cl ai m s agai ns tt he fe der al defe ndant s . T he di s tr i ctcour tthen en tered a se p ara te fina l j u d g m en t of the e n ti re c ase . B ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt enter ed final j ud gm ent, P un chard’s J uly15 , 20 05 app eal (federal defe nd ants ) b e c a m e ri p e o n M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 . S e e L e w is v . B . F. G o o dr ic h C o ., 850 F. 2d 641, 6 4 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (F ED . R . A PP . P. 4( a) ( 2) perm i t s a not i ce of appea l , fi l ed p re m a tu re ly, to ri p e n o n c e fin a l ju d g m e n t h a s b e e n re n d e re d ). A ft erfi nal j udgm enthad bee n r ender ed, Punchar d di d notfi l e a for m al n o tice o f

a p p e a l f

ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 o rd e r (D e m in g C ity P o lic e ) a n d M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 o rd e r ( s ta te d e fe n d a n ts ) a n d fin a l ju d g m e n t. N everthel es s , w e tr eatPunchar d’ s openi ng br i ef f i l ed w i th thi s courton A pr i l 19, 2006, as the func t i onal equi val entof a t i m el yappea l as t o the l at eror der s and fin a l ju d g m e n t. See Sm i th v. B arry , 502 U . S. 244, 248- 49 ( 1992) ( “I f a doc um ent filed w ith in th e tim e sp e c ified b yR u le 4 g iv e s th e n o tice re q u ire d b yR u le 3 , itis effect i ve as a not i ce of appea l . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , w e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 1291. C as e # 06- 2076, D is tr i ctC our tR evi ew of A gency D ecis i on . Pu n c h a r d a p p e a l s f

r o m t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n t h e me r i t s t h a tATF pr oper l ydeni ed, i n acc or dance w i th A PA pr ocedur es , Punchar d’ s appl i cat i on for 18 U . S . C . § 8 45 (b) rel i ef from dis abil i t i es r egardi ng t he ri gh tt o p urchase- 6-

expl os i ves . T he di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatthe A T F deci s i on “w as nei ther arb itrary , n o r ca p ri ciou s, n o r an ab u se o f it s d iscreti o n . ” (R . V o l. 1 D o c. 44 . ) A d d iti o n a lly , the d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t A T F a c ted w ith in th e sc o p e o f its au tho ri tyan d co m p li ed w ith p resc ri b ed A P A p roc ed u res. T h e d istri ct co u rt ent er ed i t s fi nal j udgm enton February23, 2006, and a t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 2. M eri t s W e have thor oughl yr evi ew ed al l of the numer ous document s fi l ed by Punchar d i n t hi s appea l and have r evi ew ed de novo t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi nal j udgement s i n favorof the defendant s and the ent i r e r ecor d on appea l . D ur i ng thi s r evi ew , w e l abor ed t o under s t and Punchar d’ s i ncoher entr ambl i ngs and i s s ues on appea l . N everthel es s , ourr evi ew demonstr at es t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on in th is c a se w a s s u b sta n tiallyc o rre c t. T h e fin a l ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt in cas e number05- 2222 and ca s e number06- 2076 i s A FFIRM E D fort he r eas ons s et o u ti n th e c o u r t ’ s o r d e r s . Al l p e n d i n g mo t i o n s a r e h e r e b yDE NI E D. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge