United States v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 17 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–2023.,13–2023.
• Citation: 746 F.3d 987
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John S. WILLIAMSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

746 F.3d 987

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.John S. WILLIAMSON, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 13–2023.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 17, 2014.

Brian A. Pori, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant.

Mary L. Higgins, Assistant United States Attorney, (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Defendant John S. Williamson has been protesting taxes for 30 years. In May 2008 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) levied his wife's wages to collect his back taxes. The IRS sent a notice of the levy, which Defendant returned, writing across the document: “Refused for cause. Return to sender, unverified bill.” R., Vol. 3 pt. 2 at 169. He enclosed his affidavit explaining why he did not need to pay income taxes. Subsequent notices of the levy were also returned.

In June 2008, Defendant sent an invoice for $909,067,650.00 to two IRS agents who had worked on the matter. The invoice listed the value of real and personal property allegedly seized by the IRS, added damages for various alleged torts, and then trebled the total “for racketeering.” Add. to Aplt.'s Opening Br. at 33. In December 2008, Defendant and Mrs. Williamson filed with the clerk of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, a claim of lien against the agents' real and personal property for the same amount as the invoice. The claim alleged that the agents:

unlawfully, without benefit of a valid court order lev[ied Mrs.] Williamson's earnings, did cause false and fraudulent Notices of Federal Tax Liens to be filed in the Bernalillo County record, did cause void judgments to deprive the Williamson's [sic] of their real-estate, vehicles and personal property, did slander and defame the Williamson's [sic] good name and credit.

R., Vol. 1 at 28.

A grand jury of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico indicted Defendant and Mrs. Williamson on two counts: (1) “corruptly endeavor[ing] to impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code by filing a false and fraudulent Claim of Lien,” in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a); and (2) “fil[ing] ... a false lien and encumbrance against the real and personal property [of the IRS agents] on account of the performance of [their] official duties,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1521. Id. at 12–13. Mrs. Williamson pleaded guilty to the second count in return for dismissal of the first count against her.

Defendant, however, proceeded to trial. His defense was essentially that he genuinely believed his lien was proper. A forensic psychologist testified that Defendant suffered from a delusional disorder that prevented him from abandoning his beliefs even when confronted with overwhelming evidence that he was wrong. Defendant requested instructions that would support his “genuine belief” defense to both charges, but the court rejected them and the jury returned verdicts of guilty on the two charges. He was sentenced to four months in prison and three years of supervised release.

Defendant appeals his conviction, challenging the district court's failure to give the requested jury instructions. We affirm.

I. DISCUSSION

“This court reviews a trial court's decision on whether to give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion and views the instructions as a whole de novo to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the governing law.” United States v. Villegas, 554 F.3d 894, 900 (10th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). An additional “instruction is not required if it would simply give the jury a clearer understanding of the issues.” United States v. Bowling, 619 F.3d 1175, 1184 (10th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, of course, the court can reject an instruction that misstates the law. See United States v. Pinson, 542 F.3d 822, 831 (10th Cir.2008). We first address Defendant's argument that he was entitled to an additional instruction on § 7212(a) and then turn to § 1521.

A. Section 7212(a)

Mr. Williamson challenges the instructions on 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) because they did not inform the jury that he could be guilty only if he intentionally violated a known legal duty. Section 7212(a) provides:

Whoever corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title, or in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined ... or imprisoned.

The district court's instructions set forth the elements of the offense as follows:

First: The defendant in any way corruptly;

Second: Endeavored to;

Third: Obstruct or impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Laws.

R., Vol. 1 at 221. The instructions then defined several of the terms that appeared in the elements:

“Endeavor” means to knowingly and intentionally make any effort which has a reasonable tendency to bring about the desired result. It is not necessary for the Government to prove that the “endeavor” was successful.

To act “corruptly” is to act with the intent to gain an unlawful advantage or benefit either for oneself or for another.

To “obstruct or impede” is to hinder or prevent from progress; to slow or stop progress; or to make accomplishment difficult or slow.

The phrase “due administration of the Internal Revenue laws” means the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury carrying out its lawful functions to calculate and collect income taxes.

Id. at 222 (italics added).

At trial, defense counsel did not challenge the accuracy of these instructions but argued that the court should add a definition of unlawful (which appears in the definition of corruptly ). He stated that “the definition of unlawful in the Tenth Circuit is, ‘with the specific intention to do something the law forbids' ” and that “an alternative definition of unlawfully would be violation of a known legal right.” Id., Vol. 3 pt. 3 at 359. Also, quoting United States v. Winchell, 129 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir.1997), he said that he would accept as the definition: “ ‘[a] voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal right.’ ” Id. at 360. When the government pointed out that Winchell was defining willful, not unlawful, defense counsel asserted that “unlawful and willfulness converge in this instance,” but offered that he would be “happy to defer to any other definition of unlawfulness, which the Tenth Circuit set out in Winchell.” Id. at 361. The court ended the discussion by saying, “I don't think we need a definition of unlawful.” Id. On appeal Defendant argues that unlawful should have been defined and that he could be guilty of violating § 7212(a) only if his acts were an “intentional violation of a known legal duty.” Aplt. Br. at 39 (italics omitted).

Insofar as Defendant is arguing that the word unlawful in the instructions should have been defined, we disagree. The meaning of unlawful is common knowledge and ordinarily does not need to be defined. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Preston, 257 F.2d 933, 937 (10th Cir.1958) (“[A] court is not required to define words and phrases which are familiar to one of ordinary intelligence.”). We note that the Tenth Circuit Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions repeatedly use the word unlawful but never define it, and the Tenth Circuit case adopting the instruction used at Defendant's trial saw no need to define it. See Winchell, 129 F.3d at 1098. Defendant cites no authority requiring it to be defined or defining it as he proposes.

Perhaps Defendant is trying to argue something a bit different from the failure to define unlawful and is simply asserting that the instructions did not impose the proper mens rea requirement. This alternative argument is suggested by his reliance on Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991). In Cheek the issue was the meaning of willfully as used in 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Id. at 194, 111 S.Ct. 604. The Supreme Court concluded, using the language Defendant would have liked in his jury instruction, “that the standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty,” id. at 201, 111 S.Ct. 604 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that a defendant can overcome this requirement by showing that he acted in the good-faith belief that he was complying with the law, even if the belief was not objectively reasonable, see id. at 203–04, 111 S.Ct. 604.

The problem for Defendant is that § 7212(a) does not use the word willfully. Cheek was not a constitutional decision requiring a particular state of mind before one could be convicted of a tax offense. It was interpreting statutory language—language not present in § 7212(a). No decision of the Supreme Court, or of this court, has held that Defendant's suggested mens rea requirement is the mens rea required for violation of § 7212(a). Nor is there any compelling reason to believe that Congress wanted the Cheek standard to apply to § 7212(a). Rather than using the word willfully, it used corruptly to define the mens rea for § 7212(a). And the federal appellate courts have agreed (although with some insignificant variations in language) on the definition of corruptly that appears in the district court's instruction: “To act ‘corruptly’ is to act with the intent to gain an unlawful advantage or benefit either for oneself or for another.” R., Vol. 1 at 222. See United States v. Floyd, 740 F.3d 22, 31 (1st Cir.2014) (collecting cases); United States v. Crim, 451 Fed.Appx. 196, 201 (3d Cir.2011).

Moreover, the definition of wi...