United States v. Chapman

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-20785
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STACY C. CHAPMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-MC-186
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stacy C. Chapman appeals from the district court’s order
compelling the enforcement of two Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
summonses. She argues that, as a resident of Texas, she is not
subject to the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Code, and she
seeks to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination in response to the district court’s order.
We have consistently rejected the argument that citizens of
Texas are citizens of a “sovereign state” and therefore not

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-20785
-2-
subject to the Internal Revenue Code. See, e.g., Sochia v.
Comm’r, 23 F.3d 941, 943-44 (5th Cir. 1994). Furthermore,
Chapman has not made the required showing that the IRS’s purpose
in issuing the summonses was solely criminal such that she may
raise the Fifth Amendment privilege. See United States v.
Roundtree, 420 F.2d 845, 852 (5th Cir. 1969). Chapman’s appeal
is therefore without arguable merit and is dismissed as
frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
The Government and Chapman have filed cross-motions for
sanctions. We have repeatedly warned “that frivolous challenges
to the sixteenth amendment and income tax legislation and
regulations [will] result in the imposition of the full range of
sanctions provided by [FED. R. APP. P. 38].” See Sochia, 23 F.3d
at 944. We therefore grant the Government’s motion for sanctions
for a frivolous appeal, and impose upon Chapman the sum of $3,000
in damages. See Parker v. Comm’r, 117 F.3d 785, 787 (5th Cir.
1997). All other outstanding motions are denied.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR
SANCTION GRANTED; ALL OTHER OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --