A ft erexami ni ng t he 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 yt hator 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. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 25, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. J I MMY C . C H I S U M,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 7082

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D . C . N o . C R - 0 5 - 4 3 - 0 0 1 - R A W) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * S tep h e n J. K n o rr, T u lsa , O k lah o m a , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. Shel don J . Sper l i ng, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , R obertG . G uthr i e, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , M us kogee, O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge.

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 1-2-

J i m m yC . C hi s um appea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence on fourcount s of t ax e v a sio n . H e c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in a d m itt in g e v id e n c e o f h is l aw s ui t s agai ns tt ax- cour tj udges and i n appl y i ng a s ent enci ng enhanc ementbas ed o n h is ro le in th e tax -e v a sio n o ffe n se s. H e a lso c o n ten d s th a t h e w a s n o t ti m e ly t r i ed undert he fe der al SpeedyT r i al A ct , thatthe di s tr i ctcourtl acke d su bjec t-m a tter ju risd ictio n , tha t th e fe d e ra l P a p e rw o rk R e d u c tio n A c t b a rre d h is pr os ecut i on, and thatt he i ndi ctm entand evi dence w er e i ns uffi ci ent . A s expl ai ned bel ow , w e affi r m M r . C hi s um ’ s convi ct i on, butw e r ever s e and r emand for r es ent enci ng. B AC KGROU ND I n A pr i l 2005 M r . C hi s um , a s el f- s ty l ed bus i nes s and es t at e pl anner , w as i ndi ct ed forai di ng and abe t t i ng t he w i l l ful att empt t o evade i ncome t axes ow ed b yB ri a n a n d M itz i C h a d s e yfo r t h e c a le n d a r ye a rs 1 9 9 7 th ro u g h 2 0 0 0 . See 18 U . S. C . § 2; 26 U . S. C . § 7201. T he governm ent ’ s t heoryof the ca s e w as

“ e s s e n t i a l l yt h a t[ M r . Ch i s u m] c r e a t e d a s h a m tru s tt o a t t e mp tt o c o n c e a l i n c o me [B r i an] C hads eyearned fr om hi s bus i nes s , R egi onal C hi r opr act i c H eal th C ar e, ” a l i m i t ed l i abi l i t ycompany . R . , V ol . 1, D oc. 35 at2- 3 ( B i l l of Par t i cul ar s ) . U pon b eing info rm ed that M r. C h isum w ishe d to rep rese n t him self, th e d istri ct co u rt a p p o in ted a tto rn e yS tep h e n K n o rr to a ss ist h im a s s tan d b yc o u n se l.

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 2-3-

A t trial th e g o v e rn m e n t in tro d u c e d tes tim o n yto e sta b lish th e fo llo w in g : B ri an C had seym etM r. C his um aton e of M r. C his um ’s sem i nars on “b usi ness s t ructur e, l i m i t ed l i abi l i t ycompani es and trus t s . ” Id. , V ol . 4 at123 ( C hads ey t es t i m ony ) . T heyl at erent er ed i nt o an arr angementi n w hi ch M r . C hads ey al l ocat ed 95% of the i ncome fr om R egi onal C hi r opr act i c t o C SE A C ot t age L i m i t ed, a trus tes t abl i s hed byM r . C hi s um “t o t ake c ar e of t ax mat t er s and anyt hi ng el s e thatw as neede d. ” Id. at126. M r . C hi s um t ol d M r . C hads eythat t axes w oul d have t o be pai d onl yon the moneythatM r . C hads eyt ook fr om R e g io n a l C h iro p ra c tic a s a sa lar ya n d th a t th e re st o f th e in c o m e “ w o u ld e n d u p in a non- contr ol l ed for ei gn corpor at i on thatw as nott axabl e underU . S. t ax l aw . ” Id. at129. M r . C hads eydi d “[n] oti nt i m at el y ” under s t and the det ai l s of how the in c o m e b e c a m e n o n ta x a b le . Id. M r . C hads eyfol l ow ed M r . C hi s um ’ s di r ect i ons i n fi l i ng t ax r etur ns for1997 t hr ough 2000, underr eport i ng R egi onal C hi r opr act i c’ s i ncome byabout$207, 000. I n J ul y2000 t he I R S began audi t i ng R egi onal C hi r opr act i c. I n acc or dance w i th M r . C hi s um ’ s advi ce, M r . C hads ey fi l ed amended i ncome- t ax r etur ns forthe y ear s 1997 t hr ough 2000, r eport i ng that R egi onal C hi r opr act i c had no i ncome. I n J ul y2001 M r . C hi s um appea r ed atan I R S offi ce i n r es pons e t o a s um m ons s eeki ng R egi onal C hi r opr act i c’ s r ecor ds , buthe r efus ed t o pr oduce the r eques t ed books and r ecor ds . E ven af t era j udge or der ed pr oduct i on of the Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 3-4-

re c o rd s , M r. C h is u m a d v is e d M r. C h a d s e yth a t h e c o u ld re f u s e to p ro d u c e th e m . Eve ntua l l y , M r . Chad s e yob t a i ne d c ou ns e l a nd be ga n t o c oo pe r a t e w i th the I RS. I n i t s cas e- i n- chi ef, t he governm ental s o i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence s ever al t ax- cour tdeci s i ons fr om 1999 and 2000 hol di ng thattrus t s cr eat ed byM r . C hi s um w ere s ham s. M r . C hi s um t es t i fi ed att r i al thathe di d noti nt end t o comm i tthe cr i m es char ged: W hetherornotI ’ ve w i l l ful l yevade d a know n dutyi s the ques t i on befor e y ou. A nd i t ’ s m yopi ni on, i tw as m ybel i ef thr ough m yow n s tudy , m yow n r es ear ch, m yow n hi s t or ythatI neverknew t her e w as a duty . I t hought , and s t i l l bel i eve i n m yheart , thatthe i ncome t ax s y s t em i n A m er i ca i s w r i t t en t o be a hundr ed per cent co m p ati b le w ith the s cripture , an d that ith as a v erystr o n g v o lun tary c o m p o n e n t to it. R . , V ol . 6 at490. I n r ebut t al t he governm entoffe r ed evi dence of l aw s ui t s fi l ed byM r . C hi s um i n 2002 agai ns tt ax- courtj udges w ho had i s s ued opi ni ons d e c lar in g v a rio u s C h isu m tru sts to b e sh a m s. T h e ju ryre tu rn e d g u iltyv e rd icts a g a in st M r. C h isu m o n a ll fo u r c o u n ts in th e in d ictm e n t. T he pr obat i on depart m entpr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eportcal cul at i ng a U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes (U . S . S . G . ) r ang e of 7 8 to 97 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent based on M r. C his um ’s cat ego ry -one cri m i nal hi st oryand offense l evel of 28. T he governm entobj ect ed, s eeki ng a tw o- l evel upw ar d adj us t m entof t he offens e l evel underU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( c) , cl ai m i ng thatM r . C hi s um “w as an or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , ors upervi s orof M r . C hads ey ’ s ( al ong w i th m any

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 4-5-

othe r s ) c r i mi na l a c t i vi t y . ” R. , V ol . 8 ( Fe b. 26 , 20 06 l e t t e rt o Su pe r vi s i ng U . S. P ro b a tio n O ffice r a t 1 ). T h e p ro b a tio n d e p a rtm e n t o p p o se d th e a dju stm e n t, s t at i ng t hat§ 3B 1. 1( c) di d notappl ybeca us e “i tdoes notappea rthatthe other p arti cipa n ts i n it ial lyinten ti o n all yen tered into a n ycrim inal ac ti v ityw ith [M r. C hi s um ] . ” Id. ( A ddendum t o t he Pr es ent ence R eportat1) . A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng t he governm entas s ert ed thatunder§ 3B 1. 1( c) , “i t ’ s notnece s s arythat t her e be a not hercr i m i nal par t i ci pant[bes i des M r . C hi s um ] . T her e j us thas t o be cr i m i nal act i vi t y . ” Id. , V ol . 7 at149. T he di s t r i ctcour ts us t ai ned the governm ent ’ s obj ect i on, rul i ng that § 3B 1. 1( c) w as appl i cabl e: M r . C hi s um pr ovi ded s emi narpart i ci pant s w i th s peci fi c i nform at i on and exam ples of h ow t o setup trust s t o p rot ecttheirproperty , asset s, and i ncome fr om t axat i on. M r . B r i an C hads eyt es t i fi ed dur i ng the t r i al i n t hi s cas e thathi s ow n i nvol vementi n fi l i ng fal s e i ncome t ax re tu rn s w a s d u e to th e a d v ic e a n d d ir e c tio n o f M r. C h is u m . L ik e w ise , M r. C h isu m h a s p ro v id e d th e sa m e o r sim ilar d ire c tio n s to m anyot herper s ons , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n the fi l i ng of i ncome t ax r etur ns w hi ch di d not. . . cont ai n compl et e and truthful i nform at i on re g a rd in g th e le g itim a te ta x e s o w e d to th e In te rn a l R e v e n u e S e rv ic e . M r. C his um assi st ed indi vidual s i n set t i ng up sham trust s t o d i sguis e o r h id e tax a b le in c o m e a n d a c ted a s th e tru ste e fo r m a n yp e o p le, in addi t i on t o B r i an C hads ey . H e al s o act ed as t ax mat t er s partnerand i nt er cede d w i t h t he I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce on be hal f of manyof th e s e p e o p le w h e n th e irta x re tu rn s w e re q u e s tio n e d b yth e IR S . . . . [T]he C our tfi nds bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence that M r . C hi s um w as a l eade rand or gani zerof other s i n the cr i m i nal act i vityof tax evasi on and fi l i ng of fal se i nco m e t ax returns.

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 5-6-

Id. at15 2-53. A ccordi ng l y , t he d i stri ctcou rti ncreased M r. C his um ’s offense l evel byt w o, w hi ch made t he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng r ange 97 t o 121 m onths . T he di s t r i ctcourti m pos ed a 97- m ont h s ent ence . M r. C h is u m a p p e a le d . W e d ir e c te d M r. K n o rr to file a n a p p e lla te b ri e f. B ec au se M r. K n o rr th o u g h t th at sev era l i ssu es p resse d b yh is cl ient w ere m erit less, h e ra ised them u n d er A n d e rs v . S ta te o f C a l. , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) (d e sc rib in g p ro p e r p ro c e d u re fo r d e fe n se a tto rn e yra isin g m e ritles s a rg u m e n ts pr es s ed bycl i ent ) . I n addi t i on, he r ai s ed tw o non-A nd ers i ssues. D I SC US SI ON I . N on-A nd ers I s s ues A . E v id e n c e o f

M r. C h isu m ’s L a w su its M r. C h isu m a rg u e s th a t h e w a s e x tre m e lyp reju d ice d b ye v id e n c e o f h is l aw s ui t s agai ns tt ax j udges . H e as s er t s thatt he evi dence por tr ay ed hi m as a t ax pr ot es t erand thati tadded nothi ng r el evantbeca us e the di s tr i ctcourthad al r eady admi t t ed the t ax j udges ’ opi ni ons fi ndi ng hi s t rus t s t o be s hams. “W e r evi ew chal l enges t o admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence s ol el yforabus e of di s cr et i on. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. R eddec k , 2 2 F . 3 d 1 5 0 4 , 1 5 0 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). U nderFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 403, “[a ] l though r el evant , evi dence m aybe e x c lu d e d if

its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b sta n tiallyo u tw e ig h e d b yth e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir pr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng the j ury , orbycons i der at i ons of u n d u e d e la y , w a s te o f tim e , o r n e e d le s s p re s e n ta tio n o f c u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e .” Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 6-7-

E vi dence i s r el evanti f i thas “anyt endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of anyfac tthat i s of co nsequ ence to t he d et erm i nati on of the act i on m ore probab l e or l ess pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i t houtthe evi dence . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 401. T he i nt entr equi r ementi n cr i m i nal t ax ca s es i s part i cul ar l ys tr i ct . A s the Supr eme C our ts t at ed i n C heekv. U. S. , 4 9 8 U . S . 1 9 2 , 2 0 1 -02 (19 9 1 ):

W i l l ful nes s , as cons trued byourpr i ordeci s i ons i n cr i m i nal t ax c a se s, re q u ire s th e G o v e rn m e n t to p ro v e th a t th e law im p o se d a d u ty on t he defendant , t hatt he defendantknew of thi s duty , and thathe vol unt ar i l yand i nt ent i onal l yvi ol at ed thatduty . . . . [I ] f the G overnm entpr oves actual know l edge of the pert i nentl egal duty , the pr os ecut i on, w i t houtm or e, has s at i s fi ed the know l edge c om ponentof t he w i l l ful nes s r equi r ement . B utcarry i ng thi s bur den r equi r es negat i ng a defendant ’ s cl ai m of i gnor ance of the l aw ora cl ai m that beca us e of a m i s under s t andi ng of the l aw , he had a good- fai th bel i ef th a t h e w a s n o t v io la tin g a n yo f th e p ro v is io n s o f

th e ta x la w s . . . . I n t he end, t he i s s ue i s w hether , bas ed on al l the evi dence , the G overnm enthas pr oved thatthe defendantw as aw ar e of the dutyat iss u e , w h ich c a n n o t b e tru e if th e ju ryc re d its a g o o d -fa ith m i s under s t andi ng and bel i ef s ubm i s s i on, w hetherornotthe cl ai m ed bel i ef orm i s under s t andi ng i s obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. In lig h t o f

th is in ten t re q u ire m e n t, th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in admi t t i ng M r . C hi s um ’ s pr i orcompl ai nt s . H e had s ued the t ax j udges for at t empt i ng t o “put [ ] [hi m ] outof bus i nes s ” byrul i ng thatthe i ncome r ece i ved by hi s t rus t s w as t axabl e. R . , V ol . 1, D oc. 69, E x. 82 ( A m . C om pl . at4) . T he law su its ten d e d to sh o w th a t h e w a s n o t ac tin g in g o o d fa ith in c o n tin u in g h is s cams. I n part i cul ar , M r . C hads eyt es t i fi ed thathe and M r . C hi s um had t al ked “aboutt rus t s t hatw er e rul ed as s hams. B uthe al w ay s as s ur ed us thatthey w er en’ tt he s ame as t he trus tt hathe w as us i ng. ” Id. , V ol . 4 at223. T o r ebutany

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 7-8-

i nfer ence t hatM r . C hi s um bel i eved i n good fai th thatthe arr angementw i th the C hads ey s w as di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the trus t s upon w hi ch the t ax courthad rul ed, t he governm entw as ent i t l ed t o s how M r . C hi s um ’ s hos t i l e att i tude t o the pr i or rul i ngs . A j ur ycoul d i nfert hathe s i m pl yw as unw i l l i ng t o s ubm i tt o w hathe knew w er e author i t at i ve s t at ement s of the l aw . M or eover , w e s ee l i t t l e dange rof unfai rpr ej udi ce, gi ven thatt he t ax- courtdeci s i ons had al r eadybeen a dm i t t ed as evi dence w i t houtobj ect i on. B . § 3B 1. 1 E nhance m ent M r. C his um argues t hat the d i stri ctcou rterr ed in cal culat i ng his offense l evel undert he s ent enci ng gui del i nes byappl y i ng a s ent enci ng enhanc ement b ase d o n h is r o le as a lead er a n d o rga n izer o f a crim inal sch em e. A fter Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), w e re v ie w s e n te n c e s fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “A s ent ence cannot. . . be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i f the manneri n w hi ch i tw as det erm i ned w as unr eas onabl e, i . e. , i f i tw as bas ed on an i m pr operdet erm i nat i on of the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange. ” Id . at 10 5 5 . W h en co n side ri n g a d istri ct co u rt ’s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes , “w e r evi ew l egal ques t i ons de novo and w e r evi ew an yfa ctua l fi n d ing s fo r clear e rror, g iving d u e d efere n ce to the d istri ct co u rt ’s appl i cat i on of the gui del i nes t o t he fa ct s . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Wo lfe , 435 F. 3d 1289, 1 2 9 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1 p rovi des:

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 8-9-

B ased on t he d efen dan t ’s rol e i n the offen se, i ncrease the o ffen se l evel as foll ow s: (a ) If th e d e fe n d a n t w a s a n o rg a n ize r o r le a d e r o f a c rim in a l ac tiv ity t hati nvol ved fi ve orm or e part i ci pant s orw as otherw i s e ext ens i ve, i ncrease by4 level s. ( b) I f the defendantw as a managerors upervi s or( butnotan o rga n izer o r l ea d er) an d the c ri m inal ac ti v ityinv o lved fiv e o r m o re part i ci pan t s or w as ot herw i se ext ensi ve, i ncrease by3 level s. ( c) I f the def endantw as an organiz er, l eader, m anager, ors uper vis or i n a ny cri m i na lacti vi t y other tha n d escri bedi n ( a) or ( b) , i ncrease by 2 l evels. ( emphasi s added) . “A l l of the r ol es defi ned by§ 3B 1. 1 r equi r e the i nvol vement o f m o re tha n o n e p arti cipa n t. A lth o u g h § 3 B 1 . 1 (c) d o es n o t i n clud e the w o rd ‘p a rt ic ip a n t’ a s s u b s e c tio n s (a ) a n d (b ) d o , th e te rm s ‘o rg a n iz e r,’ ‘l e a d e r,’

‘ m anage r , ’ and ‘ s upervi s or ’ us ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) s ugges tthe pr es ence of par t i ci pant s ot hert han the defendantw ho w er e the defendant ’ s under l i ngs or s u b o rd in a te s .” Uni t ed Stat es v. B auer , 995 F. 2d 182, 183- 84 ( 10th C i r . 1993) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). U n d e r th e G u id e lin e s, “ [ a ] ‘p a rticip a n t’ is a p e rso n w h o is cr i m i nal l yr es pons i bl e fort he comm i s s i on of the offens e, butneed nothave be en c o n v ic te d .” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 , c o m m e n ta ry (a p p lic a tio n n o te 1 ). See Uni t ed S ta tes v . Ap tt , 3 5 4 F . 3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 8 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A d istric t co u rt “ m u st m a k e sp e c ific fin d in g s a n d a d v a n c e a fa c tu a l b a sis to s uppor tan enha ncementunderU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Ivy , 83 F. 3d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 9 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (brac k ets an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T hus , t he di s t r i ctcour tw as r equi r ed t o fi nd thatM r . C hi s um or gani zed, l ed, m anage d, ors upervi s ed atl eas tone per s on w ho w as cr i m i nal l yr es pons i bl e. B ut

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 9-10-

M r. C h isum asse rt s, an d w e a g ree , that itd id n o t do so . T h e d istri ct co u rtap p ea rs t o have a dopt ed the governm ent ’ s vi ew thata s ubs ect i on ( c) enhanc ementdoes n o t re q u ire th e in v o lv e m e n t o f a p a rticip a n t. O n appea l t he governm entcont ends thati ti s “obvi ous ” thatthe di s tr i ct c o u rt b e liev e d th a t M r. C h a d se yw a s c rim in a llyre sp o n sib le, in ten d in g to par t i ci pat e i n t he comm i s s i on of M r . C hi s um ’ s offe ns es . A pl ee. B r . at31. B ut w e d o n o t v iew th e re c o rd a s th a t cle a r. T h e e v id e n c e o f M r. C h a d se y ’s g u iltis n o t o v e rw h e lm in g . See, e. g. , R . , V o l. 4 at 12 8 (C h ad seytest im o n ythat M r. C hi s um r eas s ur ed hi m “[s ] om ew her e betw een t en and f i fty ” t i m es thatthe t ax a rra n g e m e n ts w e re leg iti m a te) ; i d. at239 ( C hads eyt es t i m onythathe cons i der ed M r. C h isu m to b e h is ta x a d v iso r a n d g re a tlyre sp e c ted M r. C h isu m ’s a d v ice ); i d. a t2 4 0 ( Ch a d s e yt e s t i mo n yt h a th e b e l i e v e d “ th a tth e t a x c o d e s a i d th a twh a twe h a d e a rn e d w a sn ’t in c o m e ” ). A n d “ e v e n if th e re c o rd o v e rw h e lm in g lysu p p o rts the e n h an ce m en t, ap p ell ate fac t- fin d ing ca n n o t sub sti tute fo r th e d istri ct co u rt ’s dut yt o ar t i cul at e cl ear l yt he r eas ons forthe enha ncement . ” Ivy , 83 F. 3d at1292 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . C ons equent l y , thi s m at t erm us tbe r emanded fort he entr yof s peci fi c fi ndi ngs of fa ctr egar di ng the cr i m i nal cul pabi l i tyof any cop art i ci pan t s. Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 10-11- II . A nd ers I s s ues A . SpeedyT r i al A ct M r . C hi s um ar gues t hat“the i ndi ctm ents houl d be di s m i s s ed bas ed on a v io latio n o f

th e S p e e d yT ria l A c t, 18 U .S .C . § 3 1 6 1 .” A p lt. B r. at 2 4 (e m p h a sis o m itt e d ). H e c laim s th a t th e A c t w a s v io late d b e c a u se (1 ) th e trial d id n o t b e g in w i t hi n 70 day s of hi s i ni t i al appea r ance , and ( 2) the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notm ake fac tual fi ndi ngs excl udi ng fr om the 70- dayper i od the tw o- m onth cont i nuance he r eques t ed and obt ai ned. B utbeca us e M r . C hi s um fai l ed t o m ove fordi s m i s s al befor e tr i al , he has “w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o thatr emedy . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G om ez , 67 F . 3 d 1 5 1 5 , 1 5 2 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). B . Subj ect - M at t erJ ur i s di ct i on M r. C h isu m c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n s to di s m i s s forl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. H e cl ai m s thatthe fe der al di s tr i ctcourtforthe E astern D istri ct of

O k laho m a is “inc ap ab le of ac ti n g b yA rt icl e III j u d ici al po w ers w i t hi n t he St at e of O kl ahoma’ s s over ei gn t err i t oryand w i thoutthe fe der al zone. ” A p lt. B r. a t 2 6 -2 7 . O u r r e v ie w is d e n o v o . See Mi r es v. Uni t ed Stat es , 466 F. 3d 1208, 1209 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . W e r ej ect ed thi s “hac kney ed t ax pr ot es t err efr ai n” 17 y ear s ago i n Uni t ed Stat es v. C ol l i ns , 920 F. 2d 619, 629 ( 10th C i r . 1990) , and w e d o so ag ain to d ay . T h e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t err i n d en y ing M r. C h isum ’s m ot i ons t o di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 11-12- C. T h e P a p e rwo r k Re d u c t i o n Ac t( P RA ) T h e P R A , 4 4 U .S .C . § § 3 5 0 1 -2 0 , p re c lu d e s th e im p o sitio n o f a n yp e n a lty agai ns ta per s on for“fa i l i ng t o compl yw i th a col l ect i on of i nform at i on” i f ei ther ( 1) i t“does notdi s pl aya val i d contr ol num ber ” or( 2) the age ncyfai l s t o al er tt he per s on t hathe ors he “i s notr equi r ed t o r es pond t o the col l ect i on of i nform at i on unl es s i tdi s pl ay s a val i d contr ol num ber . ” 44 U . S. C . § 3512( a) . A § 3512( a) d e fe n s e m a yb e ra is e d a t a n ytim e . See i d. § 3512( b) . T ax form s ar e cove r ed by th e P R A . See Do l e v . Un i t e dS t e e lwo rke rs o f A m. , 4 9 4 U . S . 2 6 , 3 3 (19 9 0 ). M r. C his um con t end s that “[s] i nce there w as no p roof t hat Form 10 40 w as a l aw ful form un der the [P R A ], t he tr i al cou rterr ed in fai l i ng t o g rant[his ] r equ est [att he s ent enci ng hear i ng] t o di s m i s s the i ndi ctm ent . ” A pl t . B r . at29. B utthe P R A p rotec ts a p erso n o n ly“fo r f ai l i ngt o fi l e i nform at i on. I tdoes notpr ot ect one w ho fi l es i nform at i on w hi ch i s fal s e. ” C ol l i ns , 920 F. 2d at630 n. 13 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he cha r ges agai ns tM r . C hi s um w er e pr edi cat ed on t he fi l i ng of fa l s e i nform at i on, notthe fa i l ur e t o fi l e. H e i s ther efor e notent i t l ed t o r el i ef. D . Suffi ci encyof the Evi dence In re v iew in g fo r su fficie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e , “o u r ro le is lim ited to d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld fin d g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, b a se d o n th e d ire c t an d c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e , tog e th e r w ith th e re a so n a b le i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n t her efr om . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Se lls , 477 F. 3d 1226, 1235

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 12-13-

( 10t h C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . B eca us e M r . C hi s um di d not c o n te s t th e s u ffic ie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e b e lo w , w e re v ie w fo r p la in e rr o r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. G oode , 483 F. 3d 676, 681 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . A ccor di ngl y , he “musts how : ( 1) an err or , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, w hi ch means cl earorobvi ous under curr entl aw , and ( 3) t hataffect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . I f he s at i s fi es thes e cr i t er i a, t hi s C our tm ayexer ci s e di s cr et i on t o corr ectthe err ori f i ts er i ous l yaffect s the fai r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “To obt ai n a convi ct i on forevas i on, the governm entm us tpr ove thr ee el ement s : 1) t he exi s t ence of a s ubs t ant i al t ax l i abi l i ty , 2) w i l l ful nes s , and 3) an aff i r m at i ve ac tcons t i tut i ng an eva s i on oratt empt ed eva s i on of the t ax. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Meek , 998 F. 2d 776, 779 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . M r . C hi s um ar gues “that t her e w as no evi dence pr es ent ed thatthe r equi r ed pr oces s t o det erm i ne an as s es s m entw as fol l ow ed i n t hi s cas e and thus no t ax l i abi l i tyw as pr oven attr i al . ” A pl t . B r . at30. B ut“ce r t i fi ed tr ans cr i pt s ”— w hatthe I R S cal l s “C er t i fi cat e[s ] of A ss e ss m e n ts”

— w e re a d m itt e d a t trial, R ., V o l. 4 a t 9 6 , 9 7 , an d a re su fficie n t to es t abl i s h t he pr opr i etyof t ax as s es s m ent s i n the abs ence of conf l i ct i ng evi dence , s e e Ma r c h v . I

RS , 335 F. 3d 1186, 1188 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( obs ervi ng that

“ C e rtific a tes o f

A ss e ss m e n ts a n d P a ym e n ts o n F o rm 4 3 4 0 ” c o n stitu te “p resu m p ti v e p roo f o f a v ali d asse ssm en t” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)); Uni t ed Stat es v. Voor hi es , 658 F. 2d 710, 715 ( 9th C i r . 1981) ( r ecogni zi ng the

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 13-14-

pr es um pt i on i n a t ax- evas i on cas e) . M r . C hi s um offe r ed nothi ng t o contr adi ctt he i nform at i on i n t hos e tr ans cr i pt s . T her e appe ar s t o have be en s uffi ci entevi dence o f th e e x iste n c e o f

a tax liab ili ty . T h u s, th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t p lain lye rr in r efus i ng t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm entfori ns uffi ci entevi dence . E . Suffi ci encyof the I ndi ctm ent T he fe der al t ax- evas i on s t atut e pr os cr i bes att empt s t o evade “anyt ax i m pos ed by th is titl e . ” 26 U . S. C . § 7201 ( emphasi s added) . M r . C hi s um ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s pos t ver di ctm ot i on t o di s m i s s the i ndi ctm entforom i t t i ng “w hatpartof Ti t l e 26 i m pos ed the t ax thatw as bei ng evade d ordefe at ed. ” A pl t . B r . at31. “[W ] e r evi ew i ndi ctm ent s l i ber al l yw hen t heyar e cha l l enged fort he fi r s tt i m e af t era ver di ct . ” United S tates v. A very , 2 9 5 F .3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 7 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); s ee F ed . R . C r. P . 1 2 (b)(3 )(B ). “A n indi ct m ent i s suffi ci ent i f i tset s forth the el em ents of the offense charged , pu t s the d efen dan ton fai r not i ce of the ch arges agai nstw hich he m ust defe nd, and ena bl es t he defendantt o as s er ta doubl e j eopar dydefe ns e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D as hney , 117 F. 3d 1197, 1205 ( 10th C i r . 1997) . T he i ndi ctm ental l eged t hatM r . C hi s um vi ol at ed 26 U . S. C . § 7201 ( t ax eva s i on) and 18 U . S. C . § 2 ( pr i nci pal l i abi l i t y ) by w i l l ful l yat t empt [i ng] t o evade and defeati ndi vi dual i ncome t axes due and ow i ng by[the C hads ey s ] . . . forthe ca l endary ear[1997, 1998, 1999, or2000 i n t he fourcount s ] bycomm i t t i ng var i ous affirm at i ve acts of ev asi on , i ncludi ng causi ng t o b e prepared fals e i ncome t ax r etur ns , ut i l i zi ng trus t s , conce al i ng as s et s and i ncome by

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 14-15-

m ai ntai ning ban k acco un t s and o ff sho re accoun t s i n n om i nee n am es, a nd bya t t e mpt i ng t o o bs t ruc tthe [I RS] du r i ng a n a ud i tof Br i a n F. C h a d s e y a n d M i t z i P . C h a d s e y. R ., D o c . 1 a t 1 , 2 , 3 . T h e s e a lle g a tio n s c o n ta in th e e le m e n ts o f ta x e v a s io n , s ee Meek , 9 9 8 F . 2 d a t7 7 9 , p r o v i d e s u ffi c i e n tn o t i c e o f th e c h a r g e s , a n d a r e d r a wn w ith s u ffic ie n t s p e c ific ity to fo re c lo s e f u rt h e r p ro s e c u tio n o n th e s a m e c h a rg e s . T he mer e omi s s i on of the s peci fi c s t atut oryauthor i tyforthe C hads ey s ’ t ax lia b ility d o e s n o t r e n d e r t h e in d ic tm e n t in s u ffic ie n t. C f . Uni t ed Stat es v. V

r om an , 975 F. 2d 669, 670- 71 ( 9t h C i r . 1992) ( i ndi ctm entforfai l ur e t o fi l e i ncome- t ax re tu rn s th a t cite d th e p e n a lizin g sta tu tes h e ld su fficie n t ev e n th o u g h it fa iled to cit e the statu te th at req u ir es th e fil ing o f a tax re turn ). C ONC L US I ON W e affi r m M r . C hi s um ’ s convi ct i on, butw e r ever s e hi s s ent ence and rem and for further proceedings regardi ng a § 3 B 1. 1(c) enh ancem ent. W e al so d e n ya s m o o t M r. K n o rr’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d M r. C h isu m ’s m o tio n s to r emove M r . K nor ras couns el and t o pr ocee d pr o s e. Fi nal l y , w e tr eat M r . C h i s u m ’ s m o t i o n s t o a m e n d t h e o p e n i n g b r i e f a n d t o n u l l i f

y Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal l anez , 40 8 F. 3d 67 2 ( 10 t h Ci r . 20 05 ) , a s s ub mi s s i on s un de rFe d. R. A pp . P. 28(j ) , s eeki ng t o cal l ourat t ent i on t o C u n n in g h a m v . C a lif o rn ia , 127 S. C t . 856 ( 2007) . M r . C hi s um w i l l have the oppor tuni tyt o ar gue C unni ngham ’s appl i cabi l i t yon r emand.

Case: 06-7082 Document: 010138646 Page: 15