US v. Swan, No. 04-2078 (1st Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 04-2078 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. STEVEN A. SWAN, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge] Before Torruella, Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges. Steven A. Swan on brief pro se. Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, and William E. Morse, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee. July 6, 2006 Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below. The appellant argues that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that he acted willfully. A willful violation is a voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known legal duty. States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). Cheek v. United An error arising from a bona fide misunderstanding of the Tax Code is not willful, but an error arising willful. from a constitutional or philosophical Cheek, 498 U.S. at 205-206. objection is The appellant argues that he sincerely believed that the Tax Code was unconstitutional. This is just the sort of argument that Cheek precludes. Bonneau, 970 F.2d 929 (1st Cir. 1992). United States v. In any event, he makes no showing that a reasonable jury could not have found that he knew his tax obligations and intentionally renounced them. United States v. Campbell, 268 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001). The appellant also argues that the court should have dismissed the charges on the ground of selective prosecution. shows no error. He To prevail on a selective prosecution claim, he would have to show, inter alia, that he was singled out for prosecution for impermissible reasons. 146 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1998). United States v. Graham, Minimally, his criminal investigation -2- began before the speech that he alleged triggered his prosecution. United States v. Serafino, 281 F.3d 327 (1st Cir. 2002). Finally, liabilities the violate appellant the fails Sixteenth to show Amendment. that The his tax amendment eliminated apportionment. Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1996). The appellant points to nothing in its plain language or other law that supports his position. Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628 (1925). The appellant s remaining arguments properly before us or insufficiently developed. this decision, the appellant s remaining denied. Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c). -3- are either not In the light of pending motions are
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.
