NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0397n.06 No. 10-6527 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. RI CHARD GI L BERT, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

BEF ORE: GI BB ONS and SUTTON, Circ uit J udg es; DUGG AN, District Judge. *

PER C URIAM. Richard G ilbert appe als the district court’ s judgme nt of conviction. Gilbert was char g ed with tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S .C. § 7201, and attempting to interfe re with administration of internal reve nue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212. The district court denied his motion to dismiss the superse ding indictment for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. F ollowing a

trial, a jury

found Gilbert guilty

of bot h charg es. The district cour t sentence d him to an eff

ective prison term of thirty -seve n months. The court denied Gilbert’s motion seeking

a new trial on the basis that the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction over his case

. On appea l, Gilbert raises sever al arguments: (1) the absenc e of “interna l reve nue districts” and “district direc tors” deprive d the district court of jurisdiction over his case and made venue in the Western District of Kentucky improper; (2) the district court l ac k ed jurisdiction over his case

The Honorable Patrick J

. Dug g an, United States District J udg e for th e E as tern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation.No. 10-6527

United States v. Gilbert beca use the Secre tary of the Trea sury failed to proper ly ref er the case to the United States Attorney for prosec ution; (3) the district court improperly limit ed the prese ntation of his g ood-fa ith de fense by prohibiting him from testifying about his views conce rning the leg al effec t o f t h e absenc e of internal reve nue districts and district direc tors; and (4) the district court err ed by failing to interpre t ambiguities in the law in his favor under the rule of lenity

. “We revie w de novo the district court’s interpre tat i on of t he venue s tatutes and it s deter mination of whether a case is filed i n an improper venue.” Kerobo v. Sw. Clean Fuels, Corp. , 285 F.3d 531, 533 (6th Cir. 2002). We also revie w de

novo a challeng e to the district c ourt’s subject matter jurisdiction. East B rooks Books, Inc. v. City of Mem phis , 633 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2011). We revie w ev i d enti ary ruling s for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Vasilakos , 508 F.3d 401, 406 ( 6th Cir. 2007). The district court had subject matter jurisdiction ove r Gilbert’s case beca use it was alleg ed that he committed two o ff enses ag ainst the laws of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Fur ther, venue was proper in the We s t er n Di s t ri ct of Kentucky beca use that is wher e the activity constituting the offe nses occur red. See United States v. Mobley , 618 F.3d 539, 546 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 810 (2010). The absence of a “district direc tor” and “interna l reve nue dis trict” did not make venue improper or deprive the district court of jurisdiction. See United States v. Barry , 371 F. App’x 3, 7-9 (11th Cir. 2010). In addition, g iven that the rec ord ref lects that the United States Attorney ’s Offic e handled Gilbert’s case from the time of the indictment, Gilbert has not shown that the Secr etar

y of the Tr easur

y failed to prope rly

ref er the case for pr osecution. Gilbert has not demonstrated that the district court abu s ed its discretion by limit ing the prese ntation of his good- faith def ense be cause he has not ide ntified any such limit ation in the trial

rec ord. Fur

ther, the rec ord ref

lects that Gilbert was permitted to set forth the basis for his g ood-fa ith

-2-No. 10-6527

United States v. Gilbert defe nse, including his views on the leg al eff ect of the absenc e of int er n al re venue districts and district direc tors. Finally , Gilbert h as not established that there are ambiguities in the laws under which he w as prosecuted such that the rule of l enity is applicable

. See United States v. Ford, 639 F.3d 718, 721 ( 6th Cir. 2011). Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judgment.

-3-