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 ti n the det erm i nat i on o f 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 is c a se is ther efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dentexce 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 cons i s t ent w i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1, 2006) and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1 ( eff. J an. 1, 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r12,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 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, N o. 06- 4191 v. D i s tr i ctof U t ah KEV I N J . CRO CK ETT,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 6 - CV- 7 8 - DB) ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 1 - CR- 3 8 - DB)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. K evin J. C rocket tw as conv i ct ed o f con spi racyt o d efraud the U nit ed S t at es, 18 U . S. C . § 371, and of a i di ng and as s i s t i ng i n the fi l i ng of a fal s e t ax r etur n, 26 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 6 (2 ). T h e U .S . D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f U tah se n ten c e d h im t o a pr i s on t erm of s i xtym onths . Pr ocee di ng pro se , M r . C r ockettnow s eeks f ro m th is C o u rt a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) th a t w o u ld a llo w h im to-2-

appea l fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on under28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(B ). B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t M r. C r ocketthas fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a cons t i tut i onal r i ght , ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) , w e denyhi s r eques tfora C O A and d is m is s th e a p p e a l. A di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on forr el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ay b e a p p e a le d o n ly if

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r t h is C o u rt fir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . C ongr es s has det erm i ned thata C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . T he appl i cantm ays at i s fyt hi s s t andar d “by d em o n str ati n g that juri sts of rea so n co u ld d isag ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s re so lu tio n o f

h is c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s,” o r a ltern a tiv e ly , “th a t ju rists c o u ld concl ude the i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 (2 0 0 3 ). M r . C r ockettar gues thatthe fe der al di s tr i ctcourtl acke d s ubj ectm at t er ju risd ictio n o v e r h is c rim in a l ca se . H e a lso c o n ten d s th e g o v e rn m e n t fa iled to s ta te th e a m o u n t o f

ta x d u e in its p ro s e c u tio n o f th e tw o ta x c o u n ts . A s t o t he fi r s tcl ai m , M r . C r ockettw as char ged w i th fede r al cr i m es , and fede r al di s tr i ctcourt s have e xcl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on overal l offe ns es agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es , i ncl udi ng t ax cr i m es as defi ned i n T i t l e 26 of the U ni t ed St at es C o d e . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. C ol l i ns , 9 2 0 F .2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 9 -3 0 (1 0 th-3-

C i r . 1990) . M r . C r ockettar gues agai ns tdi s tr i ctcourtj ur i s di ct i on on t he os t ens i bl e gr ound that“[t ] he governm entfai l ed t o pr ove thati thad a bona fi de pr opertyi nt er es tof the U ni t ed St at es . Pr os pect i ve t ax col l ect i on ar e nota bona fi de pr opertyi nt er es tof the U ni t ed St at es . ( See B ar alv. U. S. , 528 U . S. 431 (2 0 0 0 ).” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. 1 . W e a re n o t s u re w h a t th is h a s to d o w ith ju ri s d ic tio n . T he B a ra l d e c isio n w a s n o t a c rim in a l tax p ro se c u tio n , h a d n o th in g to d o w ith j ur i s di ct i on, and di d notm ent i on anythi ng aboutbona fi de pr opertyi nt er es t s of the U ni t ed St at es . M r . C r ockettw as i ndi ct ed and c har ged fora vi ol at i on of the c rim in a l law s o f

th e U n ited S tate s, a n d w h e th e r o r n o t th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e d it had a bona fi de pr opertyi nt er es ti n pr os pect i ve t ax col l ect i on— w hat everthat m eans — the fe der al di s tr i ctcourthad j ur i s di ct i on overthe ca s e. C ontr aryt o M r . C r ockett ’ s s econd c l ai m , the governm entw as notr equi r ed t o s peci fyan amountof t ax due i n i t s pr os ecut i on of 26 U . S. C . § 7206( 2) . T he s t atut e enunc i at es t hr ee e l ement s the governm entm us tpr ove: ( 1) thatthe defe ndantai ded, as s i s t ed, pr ocur ed, couns el ed, oradvi s ed the pr epar at i on of a t ax r eturn; ( 2) t hatt he r eturn w as fr audul entorfal s e as t o a mat er i al m at t er ; and ( 3) th a t th e d e fe n d a n t a c te d w illf u lly. See Uni t ed Stat es v. C ut l er , 948 F. 2d 691, 694 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). M r. C ro c k e tt d o e s n o t d e n yth a t th e g o v e rn m e n t su c c e ss f u lly p ro v e d e a c h o f

th e s e e le m e n ts . I n hi s C O A appl i cat i on, M r . C r ockettr ai s es tw o ar gum ent s notm ade t o t he courtbel ow . H e ar gues thatthe i nt erval betw een hi s i ndi ctm entand tr i al-4-

e x c e e d e d th e s e v e n ty-d a yp e ri o d m a n d a te d b yth e S p e e d yT ri a l A c t, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 6 1 (c)(1); he also raises a n ineffe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel claim . B ec au se M r. C ro c k e tt fa iled to a rg u e th e se p o in ts b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt, w e d e c lin e to a d d re s s th e m n o w . Apodaca v. C i t y of A l buquer que , 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 8 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e ther efor e DE NY M r . C r ockett ’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is appea l . Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris i s al s o DENI ED . E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge