UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ROBERT F. LAIN, Defendant - Appellant, and AMELIA LAIN; SEPTEMBER LIBERTY TRUST, Defendants.

------------------------------ DOUGLAS J. CARPA, Trustee,
Movant. No. 19-8014 (D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00113-ABJ) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HOLMES , O’BRIEN , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously to honor the parties ’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir . R. 34.1(G). The case is ther efore submitted without oral argument. T his order and judgment is no t binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, an d collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 30, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Robert F. Lain, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the U nited States. Our jurisdicti on arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The government filed suit agai nst Mr. Lain to reduce to judgmen t federal income tax assessments for tax years 1995, 1996, and 1998 throu gh 2005 and to foreclose federal tax liens th rough a forced sale of real prope rty. Mr. Lain and the government filed cross-moti ons for summary judgment. In his response to the government ’s summary-judgment motion, Mr . Lain admitted that he stopped filing federal income tax returns and paying income taxes because he believed “that he was not under the legislative juri sdiction of Congress.” R., Vol. 2 at 117 (internal quota tion marks omitted). The dist rict court rejected Mr. Lain’s argument that he was a non-taxpayer not subject to t he jurisdiction of the United States as “patently frivol ous and contrary to establishe d Tenth Circuit precedent.” Id . at 159 (internal quotation ma rks omitted). The court noted t hat “Mr. Lain admitted that he recei ved payment for his services an d did not file tax returns” and that he had “prese nt[ed] no argument to suggest th at the [Internal Revenue Ser vice] miscalculated his tax liability.” Id . at 161. The district court denied Mr. L ain’s motion and granted the gov ernment’s motion. It concluded that Mr. L ain was indebted to the governm ent in the amount of

1 We liberally construe Mr. Lain’ s pro se briefs, but we do not assume the role of his advocate. See Garrett v. Selby Co nnor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).3 $1,775,060.06 for his federal in come tax liabilities; the gover nment had valid tax liens attaching to all of Mr. Lai n’s property rights; September Liberty Trust was Mr. Lain’s nominee with respect t o the real property at 3 Chape l Road, Big Piney, Wyoming (“the subject property”); and the government’s tax lien s encumbering the subject property should be for eclosed and the property sold. 2 Mr. Lain appeals from the distri ct court’s judgment. He conten ds the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the United States b ecause: (1) “While the trial court had jurisdicti on under the Code section cited, absence [sic] the citing of the implementing regulation a nd the elements required to be shown to establish that Mr. Lain was subject to th at law and its enforcement regul ation, and that his income was in fact taxable pursu ant to the enforcement regulati on, the case should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which rel ief could be granted”; (2) the court failed to “defer to the regulation in assuming it s jurisdiction”; (3) “the District Court is a Territorial Court not a Wyoming State Court and plaintiff failed to allege how Mr. Lain was subject to the jurisdiction of the Unit ed States”; the court ignored evidence that his “case file was a fraudulent construct ion”; and the court ignored the fact that the Tax C ourt found he “was liable for [ F ederal income tax], but the plaintiff alleged in the ori ginal complaint that Mr. Lain w as liable for [ f

ederal

2 The court determined that the government must hand over the ot her fifty percent of the proceeds fro m the foreclosure sale to Mr. Lain’s wife, Amelia Lain. The government initially f iled a cross-appeal to challen ge that determination, but it later filed a motion to voluntarily dismi ss its cross-ap peal, which this court granted.4 income tax].” Aplt. O pening Br. at 11 (emphases added) (bracke ts in original). Mr. Lain also contends there was fraud on the court in his dist rict court proceedings. “We review a grant of summary j udgment de novo, drawing all rea sonable inferences and resolving all fact ual disputes in favor of the n on-moving party.” Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc ., 812 F.3d 1238, 1251 (10th Ci r. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and th e applicable law, we conclude Mr. Lain has failed to show that the district court co mmitted any reversible error in ruling on the cross-mo tions for summary judgment and w e reject his unsubstantiated asserti ons of fraud on the court. 3 We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment for substantiall y the same reasons stated in i ts thorough and well-reasoned order disposing of the summary-judgment motions d ated February 5,
2019.

Entered for the Court

Jerome A. Holmes Circuit Judge

3 In his opening brief, Mr. Lain also makes passing references t o the district court’s denial of his motion for leave to amend his counterclai m and its denial in part of his motion to compel. But Mr . Lain failed to adequately dev elop any argument as to how the district court abused its discretion in ruling on th ose motions. We therefore conclude he has waiv ed any challenge to those motions

. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10t h Cir. 1998) (“Argum ents inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived.”).