FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT March 31, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13370 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o ck etN o s. 0 5 -6 0 1 3 0 -C V -W JZ

0 1 -0 6 1 6 6 -C R -W JZ R I C H A R D S . G A L L A H E R , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 31, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R ic h a r d G a lla h e rw a s c o n v ic te din th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o f f a ilin g to p a yac h ild2

s u p p o rt o b lig a tio n in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d( a ) ( 3 ) . A f te rh is conv i ct i on beca m e f

i nal , he m ov ed the di stri ctcourtt o v ac at e hi s s ent ence p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e c o u rt d e n ie dth e m o tio n , a n dh e n o w ap p e a ls . W e is s u e d ac e rtif

ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility( “C O A ” ) c e rtif y in g o n e is s u e f

o rap p e lla te r e v i e w: W h e th e rth e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr e di n d e n y i n g [ G a l l a h e r ’ s ] c l a i m thatthe di stri ctcourtl ac ked subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on t o con vi cthi m un der 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 8 ( a ) b e c au s e [ G a l l a h e r ] a n dh i s c h i l d r e n r e s i d e di n th e s a me st at e. I n a n ap p e a l f

r o m a n u n s u c c e s s f

u l m o tio n to v a c a te , o u rr e v ie w is lim ite d to the i s s ue s s pe c i f

i e d i n the C O A . M urr a yv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 145 F . 3d 1249, 1250- 51 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 3 ). “W h en re v iew in g th e d istrict co u rt’s deni al of a habeas pet i t i on , w e r evi ew qu es t i on s of l aw and m i xed q uest i on s of l aw a nd f a c tde novo, a nd f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or . ” N y l a nd v. M oor e , 216 F . 3d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( a d d r e s s in g af e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n f

ile dp u r s u a n t to 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4). G al l aherurges us t o res ol ve thi s i ss ue i n h i s f avor by agree i ng w i th h i m that b o th h e a n d h is c h ild r e n liv e d in G e o r g ia . T h e G o v e rn m e n t c o n c e d e s th a t if G a l l a he re s t abl i s he d tha the a nd hi s c hi l dr e n r e s i de d i n the s a m e s t a t e dur i ng the t i m e per i od desc ri bed i n the i nd i ctm ent , the di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave been re qu i re d t o va c a t e hi s c onvi c t i on.3

“ S ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on de f i ne s the c ourt ’ s author i tyt o he a ragi ve n type of c a s e . . . . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M ort on, 467 U . S . 822, 828, 104 S . C t . 2769, 2773, 8 1 L .E d .2 d 6 8 0 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . [ S ] ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on i n e ve ryf e de r a l c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i on co m es fr o m 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 , an d , i n alm o st all crim in al ca se s, th at’s th e b eg i n n i n g an d th e en d o f th e j u ri sd i ct i o n al i n q u i ry. C o n g ress, ho w ever , can cre at e a dd i t i on al st atut ory hurdl es t o a court ’ s s ubj ec t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n th r o u g h s e p a r a te ju r is d ic tio n a l p r o v is io n s f o u n din the s ubs t a nt i ve c r i m i na l s t a tut e i t s e l f unde rw hi c h ac a s e i s be i ng pr os e c ut e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T i noc o, 304 F . 3d 1088, 1105 n. 18 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c i t a t i on, quot a t i on, a nd a l t e r a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ [ S ] ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on c a nnotbe w ai v ed o r co n ferred o n a co u rtb y co n sen to f th e p art i es. ” E ag ert o n v . V al u at i o n s, I n c ., 6 9 8 F .2 d 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . H o w e v e r , p a rtie s “m a ys tip u la te to f a c t s tha tbe a ron [ the ] j ur i s di c t i ona l i nqui ry . ” E ngi ne e r i ng C ontr a c t or s A s s ’ n v. M etro p o l i t an D ad e C o u n ty. , 1 2 2 F . 3 d8 9 5 , 9 0 5 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ); see W est P eni nsul arT i t l e C o. v. P al m B ea ch C ou nty. , 41 F . 3d 14 90 , 14 92 n. 4 (11 th C i r. 1995) ( “ P a rt i e s m a ynots t i pul a t e j ur i s di c t i on. A nd w e do nots aytha tj ur i s di c t i on wa s p r o p e rb e c au s e j u r i s d i c t i o n wa s s t i p u l a t e d . I n s t e a d , we l o o kt o th e r e c o r d ; we a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e s tip u la te df a c ts g iv e r is e to ju r is d ic tio n .” ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . U nd er18 U . S . C . § 2 28 , anyone w ho “ w i l l ful l y f ai l s t o p aya s up po rt4

o b lig a tio n w ith r e s p e c t to ac h ildw h o r e s id e s in a n o th e rS ta te ,” is s u b je c t to pu ni shm enti f the ob l i gat i on i s of aspec i fi ed am ou ntand rem ai ns un pai d for a spec i fi ed peri od of t i m e. 18 U . S . C . § 2 28 (a ) and (c ). W e per ce i ve no cl ear e rr or i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatG al l aher f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha thi s c hi l dr e n r e s i de d i n the s a m e s t a t e a s he dur i ng the r e le v a n t tim e p e r io d . T h e e v id e n c e G a lla h e rp r e s e n te dd idn o t o v e r c o m e h is s tip u la tio n a t tr ia l th a t h is c h ild r e n r e s id e din ad if f e r e n t s ta te a t s u c h tim e . T h e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s, acco rd i n g l y, AF F I R ME D.