Opinion ID: 3033161
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: This Court exercises plenary review over questions of subject matter jurisdiction. Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007). Undeterred by clear precedent, Farnsworth argues that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction 3 over his case. Contrary to his contentions, there is no question that 18 U.S.C. § 3231, in establishing jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States,” encompasses the federal tax statutes, United States v. Isenhower, 754 F.2d 489, 490 (3d Cir. 1985), and specifically the crime of attempted tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, United States v. Gwinnett, 483 F.3d 200, 201 (3d Cir. 2007). Moreover, we reject Farnsworth’s resort to the “‘hackneyed tax protester refrain’” that federal courts lack criminal jurisdiction outside of federal territories. E.g., United States v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)). Equally unavailing is Farnsworth’s claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction due to an alleged defect in the arrest warrant that issued after his indictment. Even assuming the warrant was defective, we see no reason to “retreat from the established rule that illegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction.” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 119 (1975).