A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s courthas 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 tthe 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 h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### A p ril30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT S RB I S L AV S T ANOJ E VI CH ,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; WEL L S F AR GO B ANK; BA NK OF AM E RI CA ; NOR WES T BA NK,

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 2163 ( D. C. No . 0 5 M C 1 8 M V) (D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , BA LD OCK , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

P eti ti o n er S rbislav S tanojevich ap p ea ls from an o rde r of the d istri ct co u rt de ny i ng hi s mot i on t o q ua s h a nd gr a nt i ng the I nt e rna l Reve nu e Se r vi c e ’ s ( I RS) m ot i on t o enfor ce a s um m ons t o the B ank of A m er i ca. W e have j ur i s di ct i onT h e IR S w ith d rew the s u m m o n s to N o rw est B an k , an d M r. S tanojevich ’s 1 m ot i on t o quas h the s um m ons t o W el l s Far go B ank i n O r egon w as di s m i s s ed by th e d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n . See I . R . C . § 7609( h) ( 1) ( pr ovi di ng that juri sd ict ion to h ea r a m o ti o n to q u ash li es w ith “[ t] h e U n it ed S tat es d istri ct co u rt fo r th e d istri ct w ith in w h ich th e p erso n to b e su m m o n ed reside s o r i s fo u n d ”). -2- under28 U . S. C . § 1291, aff i r m the or der , and gr antr es pondentthe U ni t ed St at es of A m eri ca’s m oti on for sanct i on s. I n 2004, the I R S began l ooki ng i nt o M r . St anoj evi ch’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e fe der al i ncome t axes forthe y ear s 1997- 1998 and 2001- 2003. W hen effor t s t o m eet in fo rm a llyfa iled , IR S A g e n t K . S tev e C o rd o v a c a u se d a su m m o n s to b e iss u e d to the B ank of A m eri ca fo r hi s bank recor ds. 1 M r . St anoj evi ch fi l ed a mot i on t o quas h the s um m ons . T he I R S m oved for e n fo rc e m e n t o f

th e s u m m o n s , a n d s u b m itte d a n a ffid a v it f ro m A g e n t C o rd o v a , w hi ch s t at ed that( 1) the s um m ons w as i s s ued forthe purpos e of de t erm i ni ng M r . St anoj evi ch’ s t ax l i abi l i t i es , ( 2) the mat er i al s s oughtw er e r el evantt o that purpos e, ( 3) the I R S di d notal r eadypos s es s the i nform at i on, ( 4) the admi ni s tr at i ve s t eps r equi r ed bythe I nt ernal R evenue C ode w er e fol l ow ed, and (5) the m at t er had n ot been referr ed to the Just i ce D epart m ent. A pp l y i ng the tes t announce d i n C odnerv. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 7 F . 3 d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ), conce rni ng the enfor cea bi l i tyof I R S summ ons es , the di s tr i ctcourthel d thattheW e d e n yM r. S tan ojev ich ’s m o tio n s to “ D e m a n d T h is C o u rt R e a d a ll 2 P lea d in g s P e tit io n e r F iles W ith T h is C o u rt, A n d A d h e re O n lyto C o n stitu tio n a lly C o m p lian t L a w a n d C a se L a w , A n d M o re P a rticu lar ly , T h e B ill o f R ig h ts, in its [R ] ul i ngs ” and t o “C l ai m A nd E xer ci s e C ons t i tut i onal R i ght s and R equi r e The P residing Ju d g e to R u le U p o n T h is M o ti o n , an d A ll P u b li c O fficers o f T h is C o u rt to U p h o ld S a id R ig h ts .” -3- s um m ons s houl d be enfor ced. T he courtdeni ed M r . St anoj evi ch’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. 2 M r . St anoj evi ch’ s appea l i s nothi ng m or e than a r ehas h of ar gum ent s that w e hav e previ ou sl yrej ect ed as fri vo l ou s. F or exam ple, he clai m s that ( 1) he i s a “fr ee, [s ] over ei gn, l i ve man, ” w ho i s i m m une fr om t ax l i abi l i ty , A pl t . B r . at14, (2) i nco m e t ax v i olat es the T hirt eenth A m end m ent’ s prohi bit i on against in v o lu n ta ry se rv itu d e , i d. at14- 15, ( 3) the I nt ernal R evenue C ode i s i nval i d, i d. a t 5 -6 , a n d (4 ) t h e s u m m o n s w a s in v a lid b e c a u s e it d id n o t b e a r a n u m b e r, i d. a t 6 -8 . See, e. g. , Lonsdal e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 9 1 9 F . 2 d 1 4 4 0 , 1 4 4 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (rejec tin g a s f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a u th o rityto i m pos e i ncome t ax and l i s t i ng ar gum ent s thathave be en r epea t edl yr ej ect ed bythe court s ) . T her efor e, w e affi r m the di s tr i ctcourtfors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s t at ed i n i t s w el l - r eas oned or der s dat ed M ar ch 24, 2006, and A pr i l 13, 2006. D es pi t e the fa ctthatthe di s tr i ctcourtw arned M r . St anoj evi ch thathe fa ced sa n c tio n s if

h e c o n tin u e d to p re ss h is a rg u m e n ts, h e p e rsis ts in p re se n tin g h is fr i vol ous cont ent i ons i n thi s court . I n hi s r es pons e i n oppos i t i on t o the governm ent ’ s m ot i on fors anct i ons , he s i m pl yr epea t s hi s ar gum ent s i n the-4-

under l y i ng appea l and ques t i ons the l egal i tyof R ul e 38 of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, w hi ch empow er s thi s courtt o aw ar d damages as a s anct i on fora fr i vol ous appea l . W e hol d thatthi s appea l i s fr i vol ous and gr antthe g o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n . See ge ner al l y Staf f or d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 208 F. 3d 1177, 1179 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( aw ar di ng $4, 000 i n s anct i ons t o the governm entfor d e fe n d in g a f

riv o lo u s a p p e a l). A s to th e a m o u n t, w e h a v e e x a m in e d th e a p p e llate b ri e fs a n d d e te rm in e th a t a s a n c tio n o f $ 4 ,0 0 0 is a p p ro p ri a te . T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on fors anct i ons i s G R A N T E D i n the amountof $ 4 , 0 0 0 . T h e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM