United States v. William E. Baker, Jr.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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