United States v. William S. Lawson, Jr. (1982)

United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 929 (10th Cir.1982) (judge may increase sentence before defendant begins to serve it); United States v. Preston, 634 F.2d 1285, 1294 (10th Cir.1980) (settled law that "when the original sentencing process is construed to be a continuing one, where the defendant has not yet left the courtroom or is returned to the courtroom the same day, the trial judge may alter the sentence to correct a misstatement"); see also Borum v. United States, …

United States v. Tolla, 781 F.2d 29, 34 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 929 (10th Cir.1982).

See Test v. United States, 420 U.S. 28, 30 , 95 S.Ct. 749, 750 , 42 L.Ed.2d 786 (1975); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 930 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Marcano-Garcia, 622 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1980).

United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982).

United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95, 97 (10th Cir.1979); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 251-52 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 917 , 100 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed.2d 172 (1979).

See, e.g., Royal, 100 F.3d at 1025-26 (noting that remand and not reversal of a defendant’s conviction is the appropriate remedy when the district court erroneously denies a defendant’s motion to inspect *438 the jury list); United States v. Curry, 993 F.2d 43, 44-45 (4th Cir.1993) (same); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 938 (9th Cir.1986) (same); Alden, 776 F.2d at 775 (same); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982) (same).

For example, we have said that the First Amendment permitted a special condition that required a defendant to disassociate himself from any organization aimed at defeating the tax laws, see United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 929 (10th Cir.1982); that forbade a defendant from picketing in front of abortion clinics, see Turner, 44 F.3d at 903 ; and that prohibited a defendant from making “public speeches designed to urge or encourage others to violate the [tax] laws,” Fort…

United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 929 (10th Cir.1982). 18 U.S.C. § 3563 (b) provides discretionary conditions a sentencing court may impose as conditions of probation.

There exists no blanket Fifth Amendment protection for a taxpayer filing a protest form, United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir.1982), and putting an asterisk in spaces on forms to protect Fifth Amendment rights is frivolous.

United States v. Jordan, 890 F.2d 247, 255 (10th Cir.1989); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 929 (10th Cir.1982); Porth v. Templar, 453 F.2d 330, 333 (10th Cir.1971).

This court specifically rejected this argument in United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir.1982), as did the Tax Court in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-22 (1983).

United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 928 (10th Cir.1982).

See, e.g., United States v. Gracia, 755 F.2d 984, 991 (2d Cir.1985) (probationer who refused to testify under grant of immunity before grand jury investigating terrorist groups lawfully prohibited from associating with known or suspected terrorists or their associates); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 930 (10th Cir.1982) (probationer convicted of failing to file income tax returns lawfully prohibited from membership in tax protest organization); United States v. Villa…

The petitioner does, however, also cite to United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 924-30 (10th Cir.1982) and United States v. Smith, 618 F.2d 280, 282 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 868 , 101 S.Ct. 203 , 66 L.Ed.2d 87 (1980), both of which involved challenges to similar probation conditions that were alleged to violate the petitioners' freedom of association guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

See United States v. Terrigno, 838 F.2d 371, 374 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Tolla, 781 F.2d 29, 34 (2nd Cir.1986); United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1383 (6th Cir.1984) (special scrutiny); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 930 (10th Cir.1982) (special scrutiny); United States v. Pastore, 537 F.2d 675, 681 (2nd Cir.1976).

Under these circumstances, we shall not attribute error to the trial court’s voir dire.”) (citation omitted); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir. 1982) (“[N]ot having requested the trial court to ask such questions, [the defendant] cannot complain that the judge failed to initiate such questioning on his own.”). 115 United States v. Polk, 550 F.2d 1265, 1267 (10th Cir. 1977) (citing United States v. Hall, 536 F.2d 313 (10th Cir. 1976)); Smith v. Vicorp, Inc…

Memo. 2007-44 ; Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (listing various arguments that “are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous,” including that “the income tax is voluntary”); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir. 1982) (holding that wages fall within the section 61(a)(1) definition of compensation and are thus taxable income); Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) (rejecting contentions by the taxpayer th…

United States v. Gracia (C.A.2, 1985), 755 F.2d 984, 991 (probationer who refused to testify under a grant of immunity before grand jury investigating a terrorist group lawfully prohibited from associating with known or suspected terrorists or their associates); United States v. Lawson (C.A.10, 1982), 670 F.2d 923, 930 (probationer convicted of failing to file income tax returns lawfully prohibited from membership in tax protest organizations); United States v. Villarin Gere…

See, e.g., United States v. Orlando-Figueroa, 229 F.3d 33, 42 (1st Cir.2000) (holding that under FJSSA, a defendant need only convey intent to prepare a motion to challenge the jury selection process to obtain access to jury selection records); United States v. Curry, 993 F.2d 43, 44-45 (4th Cir.1993) (remanding to district court to permit inspection of master jury list); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982) (remanding to district court to permit inspec…

United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982) (citing United States v. Brown, 535 F.2d 424, 429-30 (8th Cir.1976); United States v. Florence, 456 F.2d 46, 50 (4th Cir.1972)). 45 .

See, e.g., United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir.1980) (rejecting the argument by a taxpayer that because “the wage earner exchanges his [or her] labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he [or she] derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed”); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir.1982) (“The defendant’s wages for personal services are income under the Internal Revenue Code....

See, e.g., United States v. Turner, 44 F.3d 900 (10th Cir.1995) (person convicted of violating court order by-obstructing abortion clinic prohibited while on probation from picketing in front of abortion centers); United States v. Showalter, 933 F.2d 573, 574-76 (7th Cir.1991) (a “skinhead” convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm was prohibited from associating with skinhead or Neo-Nazi organizations or members while on supervised release, because the court felt t…

In regard to White’s federalism argument, the government argues that the existence of the state procedures simply protect an individual from having their license arbitrarily revoked and that those procedures will afford her “an opportunity to explain to the licensing authorities why she should still be a licensed daycare provider in light of her conviction and her background, character, and conduct.” Analysis “A court has broad discretion in setting conditions of probation.”…

Although another series of cases is not directly on point, it is worth noting that many sister circuits have upheld probationary conditions against defendants' contentions that those conditions impinged on their First Amendment rights in contexts other than religion (see, e.g., United States v. Hughes, 964 F.2d 536, 542-43 (6th Cir. 1992), prohibiting association with union-financed political action committees; United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991), pr…

See United States v. Curry, 993 F.2d 43, 44 (4th Cir.1993); United States v. Alden, 776 F.2d 771, 773-74 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Marcano-Garcia, 622 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1980); Government of the Canal Zone v. Davis, 592 F.2d 887, 889 (5th Cir.1979); People *649 of the Territory of Guam v. Palomo, 511 F.2d 255, 258 (9th Cir.1975) (dicta); United States v. Beaty, 465 F.2d 1376 , 1381— 82 (9th Cir.1972); Unite…

See, United States v. Stillhammer, 706 F.2d 1072, 1076 (10th Cir. 1983); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir.1982).

See, United States v. Stillhammer, 706 F.2d 1072, 1076 (10th Cir. 1983); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir.1982).

Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 172 , 70 S.Ct. 519, 523 , 94 L.Ed. 734 (1950) (employees of the federal government are not challengeable solely by reason of their employment); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982) (court did not commit error in failing to exclude all government employees from the jury for cause).

United States v. Gracia (C.A.2, 1985), 755 F. 2d 984, 991 (probationer who refused to testify under a grant of immunity before grand jury investigating a terrorist group lawfully prohibited from associating with known or suspected terrorists or their associates); United States v. Lawson (C.A.10, 1982), 670 F. 2d 923, 930 (probationer convicted of failing to file income tax returns lawfully prohibited from membership in tax protest organizations); United States v. Villavin Ge…

United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Burton, 575 F.Supp. 1320, 1324 (E.D.Tex.1983).

Accommodation may be made to regular judicial practices, such as holding court in one of the divisions “only one week per month.” United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982).

Davis v. United States Government, 742 F.2d 171, 172 (5th Cir. 1984); Funk v. C.I.R., 687 F.2d 264, 265 [1, 2] (8th Cir.1982) (contrary contention “is clearly frivolous”); United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95, 97 [4] (10th Cir.1979); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 [1] (10th Cir.1982) (contrary contention “is specious”); Lonsdale v. C.I.R., 661 F.2d 71, 72 [2] (5th Cir.1981) (contrary contentions “are stale ones, long settled against them.

United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir.1982). 7 .

See also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 929 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Preston, 634 F.2d 1285, 1294-95 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1002 , 102 S.Ct. 1634 , 71 L.Ed.2d 869 (1982); and United States v. Davidson, 597 F.2d 230, 232-33 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 861 , 100 S.Ct. 127 , 62 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979). 21 In Earley, this Court reasoned that "a sentence does not have immediate 'finality,' and the court has the power to make corrections or …

See United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982).

A defendant’s motion may not be denied because it is unsupported by a “sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply ‘with the provisions of the Jury Selection Act.’ ” United States v. Marcano-Garcia, 622 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1980) (citation omitted); see United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Armstrong, 621 F.2d 951, 955 (9th Cir.1980); People of the Territory of Guam v. Palomo, 511 F.2d 255, …

And in Test v. United States, the Supreme Court held that § 1867(f) gives litigants “essentially an unqualified right to inspect jury lists.” 420 U.S. 28, 30 (1975) (per curiam); see also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir. 1982) (similar).

See Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623, 627 (9th Cir.1960) (Congress enacted Internal Revenue Code under taxing provisions of Constitution); see also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir.1982) (congressional power to tax "embraces all conceivable powers of taxation") (citing Brushaber v. Union Pac.

See Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471, 472-73 (10th Cir.1985); (explaining Pollock and subsequent historical events); United States v. Stillhammer, 706 F.2d 1072, 1077-78 (10th Cir.1983) (sixteenth amendment passed to overrule Pollock); see also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir.1982).

See United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 929-30 (10th Cir.1982) (approving condition of probation requiring person convicted of failing to file income tax return not to associate with organizations advocating violation of tax laws); United States v. Patterson, 627 F.2d 760, 760-61 (5th Cir.1980) (approving condition of probation requiring person convicted of violation of federal tax statutes “to divorce himself from organizations advocating willful disobedience of” the Int…

See United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982). 11 AFFIRMED and REMANDED. 1 .

See United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 (10th Cir.1982); Forth v. Templar, supra. In United States v. Mancuso, 444 F.2d 691 (5th Cir.1971), the trial court, following a jury conviction of the defendants of mail fraud, ordered, as a condition of probation, that the defendants make full restitution of the amounts shown in the indictment as calculated and scheduled by the probation officer.

See also United States v. Lawson , 670 F.2d 923 , 929 (10th Cir. 1982). 4 Maryland law, unlike the law of some states, does not expressly limit payment to those "aggrieved" by the criminal misconduct.

See Wood, 299 U.S. at 133 , 57 S.Ct. at 179 (sustaining act of Congress which removed the disqualification of government employees from jury service on criminal and other cases in which the government is a party); Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 514 , 69 S.Ct. 201, 210 , 93 L.Ed. 187 (1949) (upholding conviction by a jury comprised solely of government employees); see also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982) (stating that “[t]he courts have lon…

See also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 (10th Cir.1982); Cogan v. State, Department of Revenue, supra ; State Tax Commission of Utah v. Looney, supra; 26 U.S.C. §§ 61 , 63; I.C. § 63-3022.

See also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 (10th Cir. 982) (condition of probation, construed as limited to prohibiting defendant’s association with organizations advocating disobedience to tax laws, upheld); Birzon v. King, 469 F.2d 1241 (2nd Cir. 1972) (parole condition that parolee not associate with persons having criminal record or engaged in criminal activity, upheld).