United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Virgil H. Wilson, Defendant-appellant, 19 F.3d 34 (10th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 19 F.3d 34 (10th Cir. 1994) March 11, 1994

Before LOGAN and SETH, Circuit Judges, and KELLY,**  District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.2  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant Virgil H. Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals from his conviction on four counts of willful failure to file income tax returns. On appeal, he challenges: 1)the district court's jurisdiction, 2)the indictment, 3)the jury instructions and the district court's authority to direct the jury as to the law, 4)the procedure by which he waived appointed representative counsel and the effectiveness of his appointed advisory counsel, 5)the district court's requirement that the verdict be unanimous, and 6)two of the district court's evidentiary rulings. Additionally, he argues extensively about his beliefs that he is not required by law to file federal income tax returns, and that the government has departed from the original intent of the Constitution.

We review de novo Mr. Wilson's charges of legal error, United States v. Hall, 984 F.2d 387, 389 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2942 (1993). The underlying facts of this case are undisputed. We review the court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Rackley, 986 F.2d 1357, 1362 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 173 (1993). Finally, we review Mr. Wilson's pro se pleadings liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), see James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 754 (10th Cir. 1992). Our review of the entire record on appeal,3  together with the parties' briefs and the legal authorities contained therein, convinces us that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado should be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED.

 **

Honorable Patrick F. Kelly, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation

 1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

 2

Appellant's request for oral argument, styled "Statement of Reasons for Oral Argument," is denied

 3

Appellant's motion to "correct" the record is denied

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.