Unpublished Disposition, 855 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.John W. BIBB and Judy E. Bibb, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 87-1325, 87-1326.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 1988.* Decided Aug. 11, 1988.
Before MERRILL, REINHARDT and HALL, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
John and Judy Bibb appeal their convictions, following a jury trial, of failure to file income tax returns and attempt to evade a tax, crimes defined in Title 26 of the United States Code.
The fact that the crimes were not defined and specified in Title 18 does not affect the jurisdiction of the district court. Federal district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States, including the crimes defined in Title 26. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986).
It was not error to quash the subpoena of the prosecutor and the subpoenas duces tecum directed to the prosecutor and IRS Agent Smith. The Bibbs have failed to state why they wanted the prosecutor's testimony, United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 1985), and to demonstrate the relevance of the documents sought: (1) Title 18 of the United States Code, (2) United States Constitution, and (3) the Federalist Papers. United States v. Reed, 726 F.2d 570, 577 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 871 (1984).
The trial transcript was duly filed by the court reporter. A court may, upon motion, enlarge the time prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Here the due date was extended until January 12, 1988, and the transcript was filed January 8, 1988.
We have considered the Bibbs' remaining contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
