The case number at the Eleventh Circuit is: 08-12402-H.
The arguments by Snipes on appeal are summarized in the brief as follows:
The Snipes brief was filed on his behalf by Peter Goldberger.I. TO PROTECT HIS STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL VENUE RIGHTS, APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO A PRETRIAL HEARING AND JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF HIS "LEGAL RESIDENCY"
A. The Trial Court Erroneously Held that Mr. Snipes’ Statutory Election of Venue in his District of Residence Was Untimely Exercised
B. When Venue Is Contested as a Matter of Fact, the Defendant’s Constitutional Rights Are Not Adequately Protected by Relying on the Trial Jury to Decide Where the Crime Was Committed
II. THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE VENUE IN THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ON THE COUNTS OF CONVICTION
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFENDANT’S GOOD FAITH MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE, AS IT AFFECTS THE "WILLFULNESS" REQUIRED FOR PROOF OF THE OFFENSE OF FAILURE TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURNS
IV. THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT, COMPOSED OF THREE CONSECUTIVE MAXIMUM MISDEMEANOR TERMS, IS UNREASONABLE
A. The Sentencing Court’s Over-Reliance on General Deterrence Resulted in an Unreasonable Sentence
B. The Two-Level Obstruction of Justice Enhancement Was Based on Clearly Erroneous Findings of Fact
C. The Sentencing Court Erred by Using USSG §§ 2T1.1 and 2T4.1 as its Guide in a Misdemeanor Case
1. USSG § 2T1.1(a)(1) Violates 28 U.S.C. § 994(j)
2. USSG § 2T1.1(a)(1) Creates Unwarranted Disparity
3. Guideline Provision 2T1.1(a)(1) Should Not Have Been Applied in this Case Because It Is Not the Product of Careful Empirical Evidence
D. The Court Below Violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by Imposing a Sentence that Could Not Be Viewed as Reasonable Without Accepting Several Non-Jury Findings
Douglas Rosile filed a brief today, November 26th.
