United States v. Sullivan , 6 F. App'x 723 ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
MAR 20 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 00-8011
v. (D. Wyoming)
JOHNNIE C. SULLIVAN, (D.C. No. 99-CR-39-J)
Defendant,
DOUGLAS J. CARPA,
Movant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
This case is related to United States v. Sullivan, No. 00-8012, in which we
have affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the sentences imposed on
Johnnie Sullivan for willful failure to file tax returns between 1991-93. After the
jury convicted Mr. Sullivan, but before sentencing, the applicant/appellant in this
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
case, Douglas Carpa, proceeding pro se, filed an application to intervene in the
Sullivan case. On February 9, 2000, during the sentencing of Mr. Sullivan, the
district court denied Mr. Carpa’s motion to intervene. Mr. Carpa appeals that
denial.
Through an organization called The Pilot Connection Society, Mr. Carpa
marketed trust packages to individuals which, Mr. Carpa claimed, enabled the
individuals to avoid all tax liability. Mr. Sullivan bought one of these trust
packages and stopped paying income tax. Mr. Carpa was the trustee of the trusts
so formed and Mr. Sullivan was the trust manager. Mr. Sullivan was
subsequently convicted of failure to file tax returns for the years 1991-93. At his
sentencing, Mr. Carpa sought to intervene, claiming a right to protect the trust
property of which he was trustee from seizure by the IRS. The district court
denied his application.
Mr. Carpa appeals, arguing the court erred in denying his motion to
intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) because: (1) he has a “well-settled right
under trust law to defend the trusts under attack”; and (2) his rights under certain
treaties, including the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, and under
the Supremacy Clause have been violated. Appellant’s Br. at 6. The government
responds that: (1) Mr. Carpa had no right to intervene in the criminal case against
Mr. Sullivan because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon which he relies
-2-
convey no right to intervene in a criminal case; (2) Mr. Carpa may not represent
the trusts in federal court because he is not an attorney and the interests he
purports to represent are not personal to him; (3) any interest he has in protecting
the trusts is not ripe because the IRS has not commenced any action against trust
property; and (4) even if he were permitted to intervene, the Anti-Injunction Act
bars Mr. Carpa’s attempt to seek injunctive relief from any IRS attempts to seize
trust property.
We agree with the government that Mr. Carpa had no right to intervene in
Mr. Sullivan’s criminal case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) does not apply to a criminal
case. See United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (per
curiam); Harrelson v. United States, 967 F. Supp. 909, 912 (W.D. Tex. 1997);
United States v. Adamita, 708 F. Supp. 603, 604 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). Moreover, he
attempted to intervene in a criminal action against Mr. Sullivan for Mr. Sullivan’s
failure to file income tax returns. Mr. Carpa has no standing to object to Mr.
Sullivan’s conviction or sentence as such. To the extent he claims he seeks to
protect his trust property from seizure by the IRS as part of Mr. Sullivan’s
obligation to repay his tax obligation, we agree with the government that any
interest Mr. Carpa has in defending trust property against IRS seizure is
premature and unripe, since he presents no evidence that any trust property is
being or has been seized.
-3-
We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Mr. Carpa’s application to
intervene.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-4-