USA v. James Turner

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant James Timothy Turner. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-13613

Date Filed: 08/15/2014

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13613
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00169-MHT-WC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES TIMOTHY TURNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(August 15, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-13613

Date Filed: 08/15/2014

Page: 2 of 4

James Timothy Turner was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud
the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of passing a false and
fictitious instrument, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514(a)(2); five counts of aiding
and abetting the passing of a false and fictitious instrument, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 514(a)(2); one count of attempting to interfere with the
administration of the internal revenue laws of the United States, in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7212(a); one count of wilful failure to file a tax return, in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7203; and one count of giving false testimony under oath in a bankruptcy
proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(2). He appeals pro se the district
court’s denial of his pre-trial motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. He also
challenges for the first time on appeal the sufficiency of the judgment against him.
I.

Jurisdictional Argument
Turner first argues that the district court erred in failing to stay the

proceedings to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
court had jurisdiction over his case. We review a claim for the dismissal of an
indictment for lack of jurisdiction de novo. See United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d
1257, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006). Dismissal is improper if “the factual allegations in
the indictment, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, were
sufficient to charge the offense as a matter of law.” Id. at 1258–59 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2

Case: 13-13613

Date Filed: 08/15/2014

Page: 3 of 4

United States federal district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
“all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. If an
indictment alleges conduct constituting a federal offense, the district courts have
jurisdiction. See United States v. McIntosh, 704 F.3d 894, 902–03 (11th Cir.
2013).
Here, Turner was charged with several offenses against the United States,
including, but not limited to, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to defraud
the United States); 18 U.S.C. § 514 (presenting fictitious financial obligations);
and 18 U.S.C. § 152(2) (making a false statement under oath in a bankruptcy
proceeding). Turner’s jurisdiction argument fails.
II. Insufficient Judgment
Second, Turner argues that the judgment was insufficient, as it was not
authenticated with the court’s impressed seal and signed by the clerk of court. He
acknowledges that he did not raise this argument before the district court.
We review objections raised on appeal that were not timely raised in the
district court for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 731, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776 (1993). Plain error review requires that
we find “an ‘error’ that is ‘plain’ and that ‘affects substantial rights.’” Olano, 507
U.S. at 732, 113 S. Ct. at 1776. The “plain” requirement means that, “[a]t a

3

Case: 13-13613

Date Filed: 08/15/2014

Page: 4 of 4

minimum, [we] cannot correct an error . . . unless the error is clear under current
law.” Id. at 734, 113 S. Ct. at 1777.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(k)(1), a judgment of conviction must
set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court’s findings, the
adjudication, and the sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty or
is otherwise entitled to be discharged, the court must so order. The
judge must sign the judgment, and the clerk must enter it.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(k)(1). Here, the judgment stated that Turner pled not guilty,
that the jury found him guilty on all counts of the indictment, and that he was
adjudicated guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment, which it enumerated.
It also stated the sentence imposed by the court, was signed by the judge, and was
entered into the docket. As a result, it was sufficient under Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(k)(1). No current law requires that a judgment issued in a federal criminal case
be sealed or signed by the clerk of court. Here, there is no error, plain or
otherwise.
Accordingly, Turner’s convictions are AFFIRMED.

4