United States v. William E. Baker, Jr. ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                             [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    JUNE 8, 2005
    No. 04-10710                   THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                  CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 03-00356-CR-T-24MSS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM E. BAKER, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (June 8, 2005)
    Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    William Baker, Jr., appeals pro se his conviction for one count of attempted
    tax evasion, in violation of 
    26 U.S.C. § 7201
    . On appeal, Baker argues that the
    district court should have dismissed the case against him because the government
    failed to set forth any provision of law by which the district court had jurisdiction.
    He also asserts that Congress’s authority did not extend to the territorial limits of
    the states, and the State of Florida had not assented to federal jurisdiction over its
    territory. He further argues that, as a domiciliary of Florida, the government did
    not have personal jurisdiction over him, and he had not committed an act within
    one of the defined “states” over which the federal government has jurisdiction.
    Baker also contends that (1) the Fourteenth Amendment never properly was
    ratified, (2) the government failed to establish a “nexus” demonstrating that the
    taxes in question applied to him, and (3) there is a six-year statute of limitations for
    criminal prosecutions involving income tax laws.
    Questions of a district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction are questions of
    law subject to plenary review by this Court. United States v. Maduno, 
    40 F.3d 1212
    , 1215 (11th Cir. 1994). Federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction
    over “all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3231
    . The
    Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that “Congress
    shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source
    derived.” U.S. Constit. amend. XVI. Under this authority, Congress enacted
    2
    § 7201, which imposes criminal penalties against any individual who willfully
    attempts to evade or defeat any federal tax. 
    26 U.S.C. § 7201
    .
    In Cheek v. United States, 
    498 U.S. 192
    , 195, 
    111 S.Ct. 604
    , 607, 
    112 L.Ed.2d 617
     (1991), the Supreme Court acknowledged that arguments that federal
    income tax laws do not apply to individuals because “they were not taxpayers
    within the meaning of the tax laws, that wages are not income, that the Sixteenth
    Amendment does not authorize the imposition of an income tax on individuals, and
    that the Sixteenth Amendment is unenforceable” repeatedly have been rejected by
    federal courts as frivolous. Because Baker’s arguments repeatedly have been
    found to lack merit, we deem them frivolous and affirm Baker’s conviction.
    Baker next argues that the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct
    by threatening to indict his wife unless the case proceeded quickly. He also
    contends that the district court judge was not impartial because she (1) refused to
    investigate his claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and (2) proceeded to trial with
    the knowledge that she was a party to a lawsuit in state court, in which Baker was
    seeking declaratory judgment against her. Baker also argues that the district court
    and the government privately agreed to “settle and close” the case against him.
    Generally, determinations of prosecutorial misconduct involve mixed
    questions of law and fact, which we review de novo. United States v. Noriega, 117
    
    3 F.3d 1206
    , 1218 (11th Cir. 1997). We review for an abuse of discretion a district
    court judge’s decision whether to recuse herself. Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging
    Co., Inc., 
    293 F.3d 1306
    , 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2002).
    We have stated that we “find[] no impropriety in the government’s warnings
    that members of [a defendant’s] family could be indicted.” United States v.
    Horton, 
    646 F.2d 181
    , 187 (5th Cir. Unit A. May 1981).1 The Due Process Clause
    requires “‘a fair trial in a fair tribunal’ before a judge with no actual bias against
    the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case.” Bracy v. Gramley,
    
    520 U.S. 899
    , 904-05, 
    117 S.Ct. 1793
    , 1797, 
    138 L.Ed.2d 97
     (1997) (citations
    omitted).
    Because Baker presented no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or judicial
    impartiality, we affirm his conviction.
    AFFIRMED.2
    1
    In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 
    661 F.2d 1206
    , 1209 (11th Cir. 1981)(en banc), this
    Court adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down
    prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
    2
    Baker’s request for oral argument is denied.
    4