FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 10710 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 3 5 6 - CR- T- 2 4 M SS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s W I L L I A M E . B A K E R , J R ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( J une 8, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: W i l l i am B aker , Jr . , appeal s pro se hi s c on vi ct i on for one coun tof att em pt ed2

t a x e va s i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 26 U . S . C . § 7201. O n appe a l , B a ke ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d ha ve di s m i s s e d the c a s e a ga i ns thi m be c aus e the gove rnm e nt f a i l e d t o s e tf

orth a ny pr ovi s i on of

l a w by w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tha d j ur i s di c t i on. H e a l s o a s s e rt s tha tC ongr e s s ’ s author i ty di d note xt e nd t o the t e rr i t or i a l l i m i t s of th e s ta te s , a n d th e S ta te o f F lo r id ah a d n o t a s s e n te d to f e d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rits te rr ito ry . H e f

u rth e ra r g u e s th a t, a s ad o m ic iliary o f F lo r id a , th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t h a v e p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rh im , a n d h e h a d n o t c o m m itte d a n a c t w ith in o n e o f th e d e f in e d “s ta te s ” o v e rw h ic h th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t h a s ju r is d ic tio n . B akeral so cont ends that(1) the F ou rt ee nth A m endm entnever properl y w as r a t i f i e d, ( 2) the gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a“ ne xus ” de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe t a xe s i n que s t i on appl i e d t o hi m , a nd ( 3) the r e i s as i x- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

or cri m i n al p ro secu t i o n s i n v o l v i n g i n co m e t ax l aw s. Q ue s t i ons of

adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on a r e que s t i ons of l a w s ubj e c tt o pl e na ry r e vi e w by thi s C our t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a duno, 40 F . 3d 1212, 1215 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . F e de r a l di s tr i c tc our t s ha ve e xc l us i ve j ur i s di c t i on ove r“ a l l of

f e ns e s a ga i ns tthe l a w s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s . ” 18 U . S . C . § 3231. T he S i x t een th A m en d m en tt o th e U . S . C o n st i tu t i o n p ro v i d es, i n p art , th at“ C o n g ress shal l have po w ert o l ayand col l ec tt axes on i ncom es , fr om w hat eversource deri ved. ” U . S . C on st i t . am end. X V I. U nd erthi s autho ri ty, C on gres s e nact ed3

§ 7 2 0 1 , w h ic h im p o s e s c r im in a l p e n a ltie s a g a in s t a n y in d iv id u a l w h o w illf u lly a tt e m pt s t o e va de orde f e a ta ny f e de r a l t a x. 26 U . S . C . § 7201. I n C he e k v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 498 U . S . 192, 195, 111 S . C t . 604, 607, 112 L . E d. 2d 61 7 (19 91 ), the S up re m e C ou rtac kn ow l edged thatar gu m ent s thatfe dera l i ncom e t ax l aw s do n otappl y t o i nd i vi du al s bec ause “ they w er e nott axpaye rs w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e ta x la w s , th a t w a g e s a r e n o t in c o m e , th a t th e S ix te e n th A m e ndm e ntdoe s notauthor i z e the i m pos i t i on of a n i nc om e t a x on i ndi vi dua l s , a nd tha tthe S i xt e e nth A m e ndm e nti s une nf or c e abl e ” r e pe a t e dl y ha ve be e n r e j e c t e d by fe dera l court s a s f

ri vo l ou s. B ec ause B aker ’ s argum ent s r epea t edl y have been f ound t o l a c k m e r i t , w e de e m the m f r i vol ous a nd a f

f i rm B a ke r ’ s c onvi c t i on. B akernextar gu es thatthe go vernm entengaged i n p rose cut ori al m i sc on du ct b y th reat en i n g t o i n d i cth i s w i fe u n l ess th e case p ro ceed ed q u i ck l y. H e al so c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ju d g e w a s n o t im p a r tia l b e c au s e s h e ( 1 ) r e f u s e d to in v e s tig a te h is c la im s o f p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t, a n d( 2 ) p r o c e e d e d to tr ia l w ith the kn ow l edge thatshe w as a party t o a l aw sui ti n st at e c ou rt , i n w hi ch B akerw as se eki ng decl ar at ory j ud gm entagai nsther. B akeral so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t p r iv a te ly a g r e e d to “s e ttle a n d c lo s e ” th e c a s e a g a in s t h im . G ener al l y, det erm i nat i on s of prose cut ori al m i sc on du cti nv ol ve m i xed que s t i ons of

l a w a nd f

a c t , w hi c h w e r e vi e w de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N or i e ga , 117In B onner v . City of Pricha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 1 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to the closeof business on September 30, 1981. Ba ker’ s reque st for oral argument is denied. 2 4 F . 3d 12 06 , 12 18 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). W e r evi ew for a n abu se of di sc re t i on a di stri ct c our tj udge ’ s de c i s i on w he the rt o r e c us e he r s e l f . T hom a s v. T e nne c o P a c ka gi ng C o ., I n c ., 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 9 - 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e ha ve s t a t e d tha tw e “ f i nd[ ] no i m pr opr i e ty i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s w a rni ngs tha tm e m be r s of

[ ade f e nda nt ’ s ] f

a m i l y c oul d be i ndi c t e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H o rt o n , 6 4 6 F . 2 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 7 (5 th C i r. U n i tA . M ay 1 9 8 1 ). T h e D u e P ro cess C l au se 1 req u i res “ ‘ a fai r tri al i n a fai r tri b u n al ’ b efo re a j u d g e w i th n o actu al b i as ag ai n st th e d efen d an to r i n t eresti n th e o u t co m e o f h i s p art i cu l ar case.” B racy v . G ram l ey, 520 U . S . 899, 904- 05, 117 S . C t . 1793, 1797, 138 L . E d. 2d 97 ( 1997) ( c i t a t i ons o m itte d ) . B ec ause B akerpres ent ed no evi dence of prosec ut ori al m i sc on du ctor j ud i ci al i m pa r t i a l i ty , w e a f

f i rm hi s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D. 2