United States v. Irby, 11–60800.
Decision Date | 18 December 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 11–60800.,11–60800. |
Citation | 703 F.3d 280 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Charles W. IRBY, Jr., Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gregory Layne Kennedy, Carla J. Clark, Asst. U.S. Attys., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Charles W. Irby, Jr., Herlong, CA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before JOLLY, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
After a four-day trial, a jury convicted Charles W. Irby, Jr. of one count of attempting to evade or defeat a tax in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (Count I); four counts of willful failure to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (Counts II through V); and one count of attempting to interfere with the administration of internal revenue laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) (Count VI). The district court ordered a 60–month prison term for Count I; concurrent 12–month terms for Counts II through V; and a 36–month term for Count VI. The terms were ordered to run consecutively for a total of 108 months. The court also ordered a three-year term of supervised release for Count I and one-year terms of supervised release for Counts II through VI, with all terms to run concurrently. Irby timely appealed.
Although we GRANT Irby's motion to reconsider the clerk's denial of his motion to extend the time for filing a reply brief and allow the brief to be submitted to us, we nevertheless conclude that the district court did not err in any respect. Irby's appeal, however, raises an issue of first impression: whether the six-year statute of limitations for section 7201 offenses begins to run from the date the tax return was due or following the last affirmative act of tax evasion.1See26 U.S.C. § 6531(2). Because we hold that there are no merits to any of Irby's substantive points, and because we hold that the statute of limitations accrues from the last evasive act, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
The Due Process Clause establishes a floor requiring 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, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997) (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[J]udicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) ( ).
Irby's allegation is premised on the district judge's statement about civic duties to prospective jurors during voir dire, including that citizens should pay their taxes.2 Notwithstanding that this was a legally correct statement, we measure the potential for bias against the totality of the circumstances at the trial. United States v. Saenz, 134 F.3d 697, 702 (5th Cir.1998) . Here, we have a single, isolated statement made during voir dire. Taken in the context of a four-day trial in which the court instructed the jurors during voir dire and in its jury charge that the Government had the burden of proof and was required to show that Irby owed taxes and had failed to file tax returns, and that Irby was presumed innocent, this single statement is insufficient to form the basis of a claim of judicial misconduct during a trial. See United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177, 1182–83 (5th Cir.1988); see also United States v. Franklin, 586 F.2d 560, 570 (5th Cir.1978). As such, we hold that Irby was not denied his right to a fair trial based on the single voir dire statement.
The district court's conclusion that Count I was not barred by the six-year statute of limitations is a legal conclusion that we review de novo. See United States v. Gunera, 479 F.3d 373, 376 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Wilson, 322 F.3d 353, 359 (5th Cir.2003). 3
Although we addressed the application of the statute of limitations to a section 7201 violation in United States v. Williams, we expressly declined to take a position on the last affirmative act of evasion as it was not implicated by that case. 928 F.2d 145, 149 (5th Cir.1991) (). Williams held only that “the limitations period for a prosecution under section 7201 in which no tax return was filed begins to accrue on the day the [tax] return is due.” Id. Because Irby last failed to file his taxes in 2001, Count I is time barred unless the statute of limitations period begins to accrue following his last affirmative act of tax evasion.
Section 6531(2) states:
No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of the various offenses arising under the internal revenue laws unless the indictment is found or the information instituted within 3 years next after the commission of the offense, except that the period of limitation shall be 6 years—...
(2) for the offense of willfully attempting in any manner to evade or defeat any tax or the payment thereof; ....
26 U.S.C. § 6531(2). Count I thus is not time barred as long as Irby was indicted within six years of when the crime of “willfully attempting in any manner to evade or defeat any tax or the payment thereof” was completed. See 26 U.S.C. § 7201; see also United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1355–56 (6th Cir.1993) ( ).
The other circuits that have expressly considered the issue have concluded that the statute of limitations for section 7201 offenses runs from the later date of either: when the tax return was due or the defendant's last affirmative act of tax evasion. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 319 F.3d 1218, 1219–20 (10th Cir.2003) (); United States v. Carlson, 235 F.3d 466, 470 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 236 (4th Cir.1997); United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1355–56 (6th Cir.1993) ( ); United States v. Winfield, 960 F.2d 970, 973–74 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam); United States v. DiPetto, 936 F.2d 96, 98 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Ferris, 807 F.2d 269, 271 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Trownsell, 367 F.2d 815 (7th Cir.1966) (per curiam). In Dandy, the Sixth Circuit addressed facts similar to those at issue here, where the defendant did not file tax returns for 1982 and 1983, but the last act of evasion did not occur until 1985. Dandy, 998 F.2d at 1355–56. The Dandy court found that the statute of limitation runs from the last evasive act “because it is these evasive acts ... which form the basis of the crimes alleged in ... [the] indictment.” Id. at 1356. In Ferris, the First Circuit supported the rule by pointedly stating, “[t]he defendant, however, by deceitful statements continued his tax evasion through [date of last act of evasion].” Ferris, 807 F.2d at 271 ( )...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. Stephens
...(1994) (noting that we look for "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible").United States v. Irby, 703 F.3d 280, 282 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2810, 186 L.Ed.2d 871 (2013). On the contrary, the Supreme Court has recognized ......
-
Sheffield v. Bush
......George P. BUSH, Defendant. No. 3:21-cv-122 United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. Signed May 23, 2022 ......
-
United States v. Madrid
...2 as time-barred. We review a district court's legal conclusions regarding the statute of limitations de novo. See United States v. Irby, 703 F.3d 280, 282-83 (5th Cir. 2012). Madrid argues that he cannot be liable for criminal activity that was completed before December 14, 2006—five years......
-
United States v. Perry
...of the six-year statute of limitations was consistent with the decisions of many of our sister circuits. See United States v. Irby, 703 F.3d 280, 283–84 (5th Cir.2012), and cases cited; United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1355–56 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied,510 U.S. 1163, 114 S.Ct. 1188......
-
Tax Evasion Statute Of Limitations Runs From The Latest Of Last Act Of Evasion Or Date Of Return Filing
...the IRS that which is acknowledged to be owed, and which implicates the IRS's collection activity? Recently, in United States v. Irby, 703 F.3d 280 (5th Cir. 2012), the Fifth Circuit joined every other court of appeal in holding that in such cases the statute of limitations runs from the la......
-
Trials
...personal contacts” with individual having “only a tangential relationship” to events in case did not create apparent bias); U.S. v. Irby, 703 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2012) (no due process violation in judge’s voir dire statement “that citizens should pay their taxes” because only “single, i......