United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Joseph E. Scheckel, Defendant-appellant, 21 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1994)

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

Joseph E. Scheckel, proceeding pro se, appeals from a district court order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. We affirm.

Mr. Scheckel was convicted of willfully conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the Internal Revenue Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The conviction arose from Mr. Scheckel's participation in a scheme to market and sell trust instruments that were falsely claimed to be a means of avoiding income tax. Mr. Scheckel did not appeal his conviction. He now appeals the district court's denial of his of writ of habeas corpus.

Continuing an argument that he maintained throughout the proceedings below without success, Mr. Scheckel argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to try his case. Efforts by defendants convicted of tax offenses to avoid federal jurisdiction "have been rejected as either 'silly' or 'frivolous' by a myriad of courts throughout the nation." United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990). We agree with the district court that Mr. Scheckel's "hackneyed tax protester refrain" regarding lack of jurisdiction is legally frivolous and without merit. Id.

Mr. Scheckel also contends that the district court's alleged failure to issue an order granting his request to waive his court appointed counsel somehow violated his right to a speedy trial. It is clear, however, that the district court orally granted Mr. Scheckel's court appointed counsel's motion to withdraw at a hearing where Mr. Scheckel was present. Rec., vol. I, doc. 762 at 2. Accordingly, Mr. Scheckel's argument that his right to a speedy trial was violated is without merit.

For substantially the reasons given by the district court, we find defendant's arguments meritless. The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.