13‐2876‐cr
United States v. Gilmartin
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE
OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTʹS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in
the City of New York, on the 22nd day of March, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT: DENNY CHIN,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges,
COLLEEN McMAHON,
Chief District Judge.*
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
13‐2876‐cr
v.
DAVID GILMARTIN,
Defendant‐Appellant.
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x
FOR DEFENDANT‐APPELLANT: David Gilmartin, pro se, Atwater, California.
* Chief Judge Colleen McMahon, of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FOR APPELLEE: Stanley J. Okula, Jr., Nanette L. Davis, Special
Assistant United States Attorneys, Karl
Metzner, Assistant United States Attorney, for
Joon H. Kim, Acting United States Attorney for
the Southern District of New York, New York,
New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Cedarbaum, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Defendant‐appellant David Gilmartin was convicted after a jury trial of
corruptly endeavoring to impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Laws,
in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a); tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; failure to
file an income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203; failure to pay taxes to the
Internal Revenue Service (ʺIRSʺ), in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203; and mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
At trial, represented by counsel, Gilmartin conceded that he had not filed
tax returns or paid taxes. He argued instead that he did not possess the requisite
criminal intent for conviction because he held a good‐faith belief that the IRS was not
authorized to hold him liable for unpaid taxes. The district court excluded
documentary evidence that he offered to support his beliefs ‐‐ written works that
challenged the validity of the tax laws, excerpts of the Internal Revenue Code, and
instructions published by the IRS ‐‐ concluding that the evidence would likely confuse
2
the jury, but permitted Gilmartin to testify about the documents. After the parties
rested, the court instructed the jury that it had to unanimously agree on the specific
factual allegations that established the counts of obstruction, tax evasion, and mail
fraud. At sentencing, the court determined that Gilmartin was subject to a two‐level
enhancement for obstruction of justice because he had provided false testimony, but it
ultimately imposed a below‐Guidelines sentence of 48 monthsʹ imprisonment.
On appeal, Gilmartin, pro se, challenges (1) the district courtʹs evidentiary
ruling; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence of willfulness; (3) whether the jury
unanimously agreed on the specific factual allegations that established the counts of
obstruction, tax evasion, and mail fraud; (4) the lawfulness of his conviction because he
is not liable for taxes; and (5) the timeliness of the mail fraud charge. In an earlier brief
filed by counsel, before Gilmartin was permitted to proceed pro se, he also challenged
the propriety of the two‐level obstruction of justice enhancement.
I. Exclusion of documentary evidence
We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, reversing only for
manifest error. United States v. Miller, 626 F.3d 682, 688 (2d Cir. 2010). Under Federal
Rule of Evidence 403, a district court ʺmay exclude relevant evidence if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.ʺ Fed. R. Evid. 403. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in excluding Gilmartinʹs documentary evidence, which included
3
argumentary materials regarding the ʺvoluntary natureʺ of filing tax returns and
excerpts from the Internal Revenue Code, as it had the potential to confuse the jury. See
United States v. Kraeger, 711 F.2d 6, 7‐8 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam); see also United States v.
Payne, 978 F.2d 1177, 1182 (10th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, although the documents were
excluded, the district court permitted Gilmartin to testify about the documents and the
basis of his understanding of the tax laws. We agree that the probative value of the
evidence did not substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Gilmartin argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the
requisite criminal intent for his convictions.1 ʺIt is well‐established that a defendant
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence bears a heavy burden.ʺ United States v.
Aguiar, 737 F.3d 251, 264 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
When considering a sufficiency challenge, ʺwe view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, drawing all inferences in the governmentʹs favor and
deferring to the juryʹs assessments of the witnessesʹ credibility.ʺ Id. A jury verdict must
stand as long as ʺany rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
1 For Counts Two, Three, and Four, tax evasion, failure to file a tax return, and
failure to pay taxes, the government was required to prove willfulness. See United States v.
Josephberg, 562 F.3d 478, 488 (2d Cir. 2009) (tax evasion); United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906,
919 (7th Cir. 2011) (failure to file); United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 239‐40 (3d Cir. 1992)
(failure to pay). For Count One, IRS obstruction, the government had to show that Gilmartin
acted ʺcorruptly,ʺ or with ʺthe intent to secure an unlawful advantage or benefitʺ for himself or
another. United States v. Marinello, 839 F.3d 209, 218 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v.
Parse, 789 F.3d 83, 121 (2d Cir. 2015)). For Count Five, mail fraud, the government had to prove
Gilmartinʹs specific intent to defraud the United States of federal taxes. See United States v.
Parse, 789 F.3d 83, 121 (2d Cir. 2015).
4
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.ʺ Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979)).
In the tax fraud context, willfulness is established when the government
shows (1) ʺthe law imposed a duty on the defendantʺ; (2) ʺthe defendant knew of [that]
dutyʺ; and (3) ʺ[the defendant] voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.ʺ United
States v. Klausner, 80 F.3d 55, 62‐63 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S.
192, 201 (1991)). Willfulness may be established by circumstantial evidence. Id. at 62‐
63. We have previously determined that certain facts can support an inference that a
defendant willfully violated his duty to obey tax laws, including the defendantʹs prior
taxpaying record, United States v. Bok, 156 F.3d 157, 165 (2d Cir. 1998); educational
background, United States v. MacKenzie, 777 F.2d 811, 818 (2d Cir. 1985); and knowledge
of previous court rulings against the defendant or others who relied on the defendantʹs
theory of tax law, United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v.
Ebner, 782 F.2d 1120, 1126 (2d Cir. 1986) (defendantsʹ continued claim of tax‐exempt
status after court issued judgment against them ʺwas strong proof to rebut [the]
contention that they did not knowingly do anything illegalʺ).
The government presented compelling evidence to establish Gilmartinʹs
intent to violate the Tax Code, secure an unlawful advantage for himself, and deprive
the IRS of taxes owed. The record is replete with evidence of Gilmartinʹs advanced
education level, history of filing valid tax returns, and knowledge of case law that
rejected his theory of tax liability. In particular, Gilmartin refused to file returns after a
5
New York State appellate court rejected his arguments and dismissed his appeal, which
belies the contention that he did not knowingly violate the law. Ebner, 782 F.2d at 1126.
Thus, the government provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that
Gilmartin acted with the requisite intent.
Finally, Gilmartin may not rely on his purportedly good‐faith belief that
he was not required to pay taxes, as such a defense ʺencompasses misunderstanding of
the law, not disagreement with the law.ʺ Schiff, 801 F.2d at 112. Claims regarding the
constitutionality of the Tax Code that ʺdo not arise from innocent mistakes caused by
the complexity of the [code]ʺ are wholly different, do not negate willfulness, and do not
provide a defense to criminal prosecution. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 205‐06.
III. Unanimity of Jury Findings
Gilmartin also challenges his conviction on the ground that the district
court did not require a special verdict form and, therefore, there is no proof that the jury
unanimously agreed on the specific allegations that established the counts of
obstruction, tax evasion, and mail fraud. We review this argument for plain error as it
was not raised below and find no such error here. United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122,
131 (2d Cir. 2011). Gilmartinʹs argument fails because the district court instructed the
jury that it had to unanimously agree on the specific allegations of the counts in
question, and a jury is assumed to have followed the instructions given to it by the
court. United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir. 2009).
6
IV. Tax Protestor Arguments
Gilmartinʹs argument that that his conviction should be overturned
because he was not liable for taxes is also unavailing. We have consistently rejected
these arguments, and they do not provide a basis for Gilmartin to challenge his
conviction. See, e.g., Ficalora v. C.I.R., 751 F.2d 85, 87‐88 (2d Cir. 1984).
V. Timeliness of Mail Fraud Charge
Gilmartin asserts on appeal that he was charged with mail fraud more
than five years after his last allegedly fraudulent mailing. Gilmartin did not raise this
defense before the district court, thereby waiving his right to assert it on appeal. See
United States v. Walsh, 700 F.2d 846, 855‐56 (2d Cir. 1983).
VI. Sentencing Enhancement
We review a sentencing courtʹs application of the Sentencing Guidelines
de novo and its underlying factual findings with respect to sentencing for clear error.
United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2011). A defendant is subject to the two‐
level enhancement if he ʺwillfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or
impede, the administration of justice.ʺ U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The enhancement is
appropriate when a defendant gives ʺfalse testimony concerning a material matter with
the willful intent to provide false testimony.ʺ United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94
(1993).
Although Gilmartin, through his prior counsel, characterizes his
testimony as merely a frivolous legal position, Gilmartinʹs education, continued failure
7
to pay taxes despite repeated notice from the IRS regarding his obligations, and
knowledge of legal precedent rejecting his theories undermine his testimony that he
believed in good faith that he had no obligation to pay taxes. Accordingly, the district
courtʹs finding that Gilmartin gave false testimony regarding his understanding of his
obligation to pay taxes was not clearly erroneous.
We have considered all of Gilmartinʹs remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the
judgment of conviction.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine OʹHagan Wolfe, Clerk
8