United States of America v. Nathaniel Green

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-04-677)
Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Green, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Hechtkopf, John Hinton,
III, M. Kendall Day, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*Green argues: (1) that he removed any “presumption of power
of attorney that the United States government” had on him; (2) that
he declared that he is of the Washitaw Muurs nationality, rather
than a U.S. citizen; (3) that he revoked all signatures and powers
of attorney of previously filed W-4 forms and state and local tax
forms; (4) that he emancipated himself from his government-issued
birth certificate in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code;
and (5) that the government’s use of his name violates a copyright
as the name is a trade name under the Uniform Commercial Code.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Green appeals his conviction for several counts
of filing false tax documents, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
(2000), aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax
documents, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2000), and
obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (2000).
Green was sentenced to thirty-six months of imprisonment, to be
followed by three years of supervised release.
Green, representing himself on appeal as he did below,
raises several challenges to his conviction. Because these
arguments are baseless, * we deny Green’s motion for transcript at
government expense and affirm Green’s conviction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --