UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ GERALD R. CARRO LL, a/k/a Gabriel Salim Baseer Bey, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JOE MOOREHEAD, Warden USP Colorado, Respondent - Appellee. No. 17-1353 (D.C. No. 1:17- CV-02025-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT

________________ _________________ Before BRISCOE , HOLMES , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Gerald R. Carroll filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application to challenge the legality of his incarceration at the federal prison in Flor ence, Colorado on the gr ound that he is a “Moorish American National” and not subject to federal ju risdiction under the “Act of State doctrine” and the “Political Question Doctrine.” ROA at 4. The district court denied his application, stati ng that “[c]ourts routinely rej ect as frivolous the argument that an individual, being a llegedly Moorish in ancestry, is somehow individually sovereign and outside of federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 26 (citing cases). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1291, we affirm. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 1, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Mr. Carroll lists three argumen ts in his appellate brief. 1 First, he argues the district court erred by failing to address whether he has met the Article III standing requirement. Aplt. Br. at 3. But the issu e in this proceeding is not Mr. Carroll’s standing—the district court di d not say that he lacked standing—it is whether his application states a viable clai m. And, of course, if Mr. Carroll lacks standing, this matter would be dism issed for lack of jurisdiction. See Sause v. Bauer , 859 F.3d 1270, 1278 (10th Cir. 2017). Second, Mr. Carroll argues the district court erred by denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, in certifying that a ny appeal would not be taken in good faith, and in not ordering the government to respond to his § 2241 application. Aplt. Br. at 4-5. Because we agree with th e district court’s ultimate disposition that Mr. Carroll’s application should be dismissed as frivolous, we find the district court acted within its discretion as to e ach of these alleged errors. Third, he argues the district court erre d under “Article IV § 1 and Article VI, Where Documents Presented Are Entitled to ‘Full Faith and Cred it’ of the United States. And a Republican Form of Government.” Aplt. Br. at 5. Mr. Carroll then refers to documentation of his “Moorish American National Status.” Id. The referenced documents appear in the record, and there is no indication the district court failed to consider them. He next argues the district court denied him the right to challenge his

1 Because Mr. Carroll is pr o se, we liberally construe his filings but do not act as his advocate. Yang v. Archuleta , 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).3 detention in violation of due process. Id . at 5-6. But the distri ct court did not deny him the right to challenge his detention; it dete rmined that his challenge is frivolous. To the extent Mr. Carroll’s arguments cha llenge the dismissal of his claim that the United States lacks jurisdicti on to incarcerate him because he is a Moorish American National, as noted above, we agree with the district court that his claim is frivolous. Courts uniformly have so held. See , e.g. , Bey v. State , 847 F.3d 559, 561 (7th Cir. 2017) (declaring argument “that as a result of eight eenth-century treaties the United States has no jurisdiction over its Moor ish inhabitants” is “without any basis in fact”); United States
v. Burris , 231 Fed. Appx. 281, 282 (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (describing the defendants claim that “the c ourt lacked jurisdiction because of his status as a Moorish American National” as “patently frivolous”); United States v. Heggins , 240 F. Supp. 3d 399, 404 (W.D.N.C. 2017) (stating “[c]ourts . . . have repeatedly rejected similar [Moorish American National] argumen ts as baseless and frivolous”); Moose v. Krueger , 2016 WL 7391513 at *3 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2016) (rejecting for the fifth time as “meritless” the claim that the government, including the fede ral court, lacks jurisdiction because the petitioner is a Moorish American National sovereign citizen). Mr. Carroll offers no pertinent aut hority to the contrary.4 We affirm the judgment of the district court. Because Mr. Carroll has not advanced a “reasoned, nonfri volous argument” on appeal, see Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury , 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10t h Cir. 2005), we deny hi s request to proceed in forma pauperis

.
Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge