A ft erexami ni ng the 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 ythator 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. S e e 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 ptundert he 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 

### F e b r u ary2,2007 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 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. ANT ONI US M AR I A HE I JNE N,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N os . 05- 2114 & 05- 2318 ( D. C. No . CR- 0 3 - 2 0 7 2 - J B)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , KELLY and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

D e fe n d a n t A n to n iu s M a ria H e ijn e n , ap p e a rin g p ro se , ap p e a ls f ro m h is c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e fo ro n e c o u n to f c o n s p i r a c y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 371; one countof w i r e fr aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1343; t hr ee c ount s of u s i n g wi r e f

r a u d p r o c e e d s t o p r o mo t e i l l e g a l a c t i v i ty , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i ) ; a n d o n e c o u n to f mo n e yl a u n d e r i n g , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C.- 2-

§ 1957. H i s convi ct i on r es ul t ed i n a for fei tur e of f unds and a s ent ence of 110 mo n th s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t . I n No . 0 5 - 2 3 1 8 , we e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1291 and affi r m . W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on i n N o. 05- 2114 beca us e appe l l antfi l ed hi s not i ce of

appea l befor e he w as s ent ence d, and j udgm entw as noty etfi nal . See Fl anaga n v. U ni t ed St at es , 465 U . S. 259, 263 ( 1984) . N o exce pt i on t o the rul e of fi nal i tyappl i es , and N o. 05- 2114 i s ther efor e di s m i s s ed. A p p e llan t w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryo f th e a b o v e f

ra u d -re late d c h a rg e s in M arch 20 05 . T he sche m e i nv olved his sal e of f raudulenti nv estm ents t o invest ors, w h o w e re p ro m ise d a m a z in g re tu rn s o n th e ir m o n e yw h e n th e in v e stm e n t w a s s o ld t o y etanotherpartyata pr ofi t . T he governm entpr oved t o the j ur y ’ s s at i s fac t i on thatno l egi t i m at e comm er ci al i nves t m ent s w er e eve rpur chas ed. I nves t or s gave m o n eyto ap p ell an t, w h o d ep o sit ed itin h is ba n k ac co u n ts an d rep aid in v esto rs o u t o f th e s e f u n d s to m a k e th e s c h e m e a p p e a r l e g itim a te . A p p ell an t m aintains h is i n n o ce n ce , arg u ing that the p roc ee d ing s w ere fr audul entand thathi s convi ct i on and s ent ence ar e unl aw ful . A m ong hi s m any a rg u m e n ts, th e se fo u r a re n o t f riv o lo u s o n th e ir fa c e : (1 ) th a t th e e v id e n c e is insu ffici en t t o su p p o rth is co n v ict ion , (2) tha t th e juryinstruction s w ere err oneous , ( 3) thatdefe ns e w i tnes s es w er e w i thhel d fr om the j ury , and ( 4) thatt he cal cul at i ons us ed t o s uppor ts om e of the s ent ence enhanc ement s w er e neve rfound bythe j ury . W e neve r thel es s r ej ectthes e ar gum ent s beca us e theyar e uns uppor t ed- 3-

byl egal ar gum entorauthor i tyorbyanyci t at i ons t o the ext ens i ve r ecor d of the p ro c e e d in g s . Fi r s t , appel l ant ’ s i s s ues ar e nots upport ed byanydevel oped l egal ar gum ent orauthor i ty , and w e nee d notcons i derthem. See Phi l l i ps v. C al houn, 956 F. 2d 949, 953- 54 ( 10th C i r . 1992) . A l though appel l antas s er t s thathe w as hel d i n a c ityjail a n d lac k e d a c c e ss to leg a l m a ter ials , A p lt. B r. at 3 0 , h e v o lu n tar ily w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o couns el l ong befor e tr i al and di d notobj ectw hen the di s tr i ct courtgr ant ed s t andbycouns el ’ s m ot i on t o t erm i nat e herappoi nt m ent , fi l ed af t er s e n te n c in g , b e c a u s e “ H e ijn e n h a s s ta te d th a t h e d o e s n o t w a n t s ta n d b yc o u n s e l,” R . , D oc. 197. “St andbycouns el i s the equi val entof l i br aryacc es s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 375 F. 3d 1041, 1052 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . “W hen a pr i s oner vol unt ar i l y , know i ngl yand i nt el l i gent l yw ai ves hi s r i ghtt o couns el i n a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng, he i s notent i t l ed t o acc es s t o a l aw l i br aryorotherl egal m at er i al s . ” I d. A ppel l anti s ther efor e notexcus ed fr om s uppor t i ng hi s ar gum ent s w i th l egal a u th o r i ty. In a d d it ion , “[ w ]e h av e b ee n ab u n d an tl yclea r th at a p artyb efo re this C o u rt b ea rs th e re sp o n sibil ityo f ty ing the re leva n t fac ts t o the re co rd in o rde r t o ca rry the bur den of pr ovi ng err or . T hi s C our thas no r es pons i bi l i tyt o s i ftthr ough the r ecor d t o fi nd s uppor tfor[appe l l ant ’ s ] ar gum ent s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. St ephens on, 452 F. 3d 1173, 1182 n. 4 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. For t i er , 242 F. 3d 1224, 1230 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( “The l ack of- 4-

evi dent i arys uppor tpr ecl udes r evi ew of [a ppel l ant ’ s ] cl ai m . ”) , s uper s eded by s t atut e on othergr ounds , as r ecogni zed i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ol den, 368 F. 3d 1032, 1036 n. 4 ( 8th C i r . 2004) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R odr i guez- A gui rr e, 108 F. 3d 1228, 1 2 3 7 n .8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (“ In th e a b se n c e o f e ss e n tial re fe re n c e s to th e re c o rd in a party ’ s br i ef, t he courtw i l l nots i ftthr ough the r ecor d t o fi nd s uppor tforthe cl ai m ant ’ s ar gum ent s . ” ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ) . B eca us e appe l l antdi d notpr ovi de a n yc itatio n s to th e re c o rd to su p p o rt h is a rg u m e n ts, w e rejec t h is a rg u m e n ts o u trig h t. A ppel l ant ’ s otherar gum ent s ar e fr i vol ous on thei rfac e, and w e r ej ectthem w i thoutdi s cus s i on. W e d e n ya p p e llan t’s re q u e st th a t w e c o n so lid a te th is a p p e a l w ith N o. 05- 2097 and i ncorpor at e hi s br i efs fr om thatappea l byr efe r ence beca us e that appea l w as di s m i s s ed i n J anuary2006. Fur ther , i ncorpor at i on of document s by r efe r ence i s di s favor ed bec aus e i tal l ow s l i t i gant s t o ci r cumventpage l i m i t at i ons a n d c o mp l i c a t e s t h e j u d g e s ’ r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . S e e , e . g . , Ga i n e s - Ta b b v . I CI E x p losive s, U S A , Inc . , 1 6 0 F . 3 d 6 1 3 , 6 2 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W e denyappel l ant ’ s r eques tforan expe di t ed r ever s al underH ol m es v. S o u th C a ro lin a , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 7 2 7 (2 0 0 6 ).- 5-

A p p e a l N o . 0 5 -2 1 1 4 is D IS M IS S E D . T h e ju d g m e n t in N o . 0 5 -2 3 1 8 is AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge