* The case is unanimously ordered submitted withoutoral argument

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court g enerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 17 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PETER J. PRYOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 03-1294 (D.C. No. 01-ES-2006 (PAC))

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , LUCERO and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.
Peter J. Pryor, proceeding pro se, appeals from a d istrict court order dismissing his suit requesting tax refunds for fail ure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Pryor challenges his income tax liabilities, inter alia, on the ground that legislation proposing the Sixteenth Ame ndment to the United States1 The Government states that the records of the De partment of Justice’s

Tax Division show that Pryor has paid the $1,500 inattorneys’ fees imposed on Pryor in 1993. - 2 - Constitution is unconstitutional. Without reaching the merits of Pryor’s claim we
DISMISS for failure to pay sanctions previously imposed bythis court. We have sanctioned Pryor in two previous tax cases. In Pryor v. Comm’r , of Internal Revenue , No. 85-2938, slip op. at 3 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 198 6) (tax year 1980), we imposed a sanction of $500 against Pryor for bringing a legally frivolous appeal. Seven years later, in Pryor v. U nited States , we assessed attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,500 in favor of the Government and directed that “the Clerk of this court reject any further ap peals filed by plaintiff against the United States, its agencies or officials unless pla intiff attaches satisfactory evidence showing that he has satisfied all outstand ing sanctions levied by this court against him in favor of the United States or its agencies.” No. 92-1220, 1993 WL 213817, at **2 (10th Cir. June 14, 1993) (t ax year 1988). According to the Government, as of April 2004, the Department of Justice’s Tax Division has no record that Pryor pai d the $500 sanction imposed on him in 1986. 1 Pryor’s proffer of documents stating he paid in f ull all tax, penalties, and interest for tax year 1980 and his c laim that the $500 sanction was included as a statutory addition to taxes levied fo r that year do not persuade us that the $500 sanction was paid. We also note that we have previously dismissed- 3 -

an appeal because Pryor failed to prove that the same sanction at issue in this case—the $500 sanction imposed in 1986—had been pai d. See Pryor v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue , No. 94-9020, slip op. at 2 (10th Cir. June 6, 199 5). Pursuant to our June 14, 1993 order, because Pryor has failed to present satisfactory evidence showing that he paid the $500 sanction imposed in Pryor , No. 85-2938, this appeal is DISMISSED . Pryor’s motion to order the Government to supplement its response is DENIED . His motion requesting that we vacate and refund the sanction imposed in Pryor , 1993 WL 213817, and his motion requesting that we vacate our order and judg ment in Pryor v. United
States , No. 90-1237, slip op. (10th Cir. Feb. 19, 1991), are also DENIED . At this point we decline to sanction Pryor for maintaining a frivolous appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and instea d redirect the clerk to reject any further appeals filed by Pryor against the Unit ed States until such time that he shows he has satisfied all outstanding sanctions le vied by this court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge